IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 641/2009 ( Pradeep @ Balya Nilkanth Wanjari ..vs. State of Maharashtra.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 6 th May, 2009 Heard Shri Daga, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Thakare, APP, for respondent. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail as the applicant is being prosecuted for the offence under MCOC Act. The reply of the learned APP discloses that there are about 12 offences registered against the applicant and he is facing the trial for the same. It appears that the offences which are referred in the reply are pertaining to the period prior to 2005. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the other accused in this case have been released on bail and therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant should also be released on bail. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 2005 for this offence and in fact this offence is not made out against the applicant. The order of this Court dated 3rd December, 2008, is pressed into service by the learned counsel for the applicant to claim bail for the applicant. The relevant order reads thus- “This is an application for bail by an accused, who has been arrested for having committed offence punishable under Sections 3(1) (ii) and 3(4) of M.C.O.C. Act. The application is strongly opposed by the learned APP for the non-applicant. From the reply filed by the learned APP, it seems that there is no substantive crime, which could be said to have been committed by the applicant as a part of his continuing unlawful actively. The criminal history of the applicant shows that he is a chain snatcher and has been chargesheeted for several offences punishable under Sections 380 and 379 as also 461, 458 and 393 of the Penal Code. The learned APP states that the case is now fixed for framing of charge and therefore, the bail application may be rejected. Considering the nature of offences, which the applicant is alleged to have committed in the past, and also the fact that there is no substantive offence for which the applicant is sought to be tried under M.C.O.C. Act, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a PR bond of Rs.1 lac with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount on the condition that he shall attend the police Station concerned every day at 7 p.m. till the trial is over.” The answer of the learned APP for the specific query as to any appeal has been preferred against that order, was in negative. In these circumstances, the applicant would be entitled for bail. However, subject to conditions. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.Bond of Rs.1 lac subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Tahsil, Nagpur, on every day at 7 p.m. until the trial is over and shall not commit any offence. If the applicant commits any offence, liberty to the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail. Bail in trial Court. JUDGE Rvjalit