1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5354 of 2009 Sunil Giridhari Harijan ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for the applicant. Mr.A.S. Gadkari APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 11th March 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, applicant seeks bail in connection with a crime bearing C.R.No. I-74 of 2009 registered at Palghar Police Station, District Thane for an alleged offence punishable u/s.394, 397 r/w section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 18th June 2009 at about 9.00 p.m Mr.Vijay Pandey was robbed on the road by the applicant and others. Learned APP submits that Mr.Surendra 2 Dhaku Dandekar is an eye witness to the crime and has named the present applicant in his statement and therefore prima facie case is made out. 4. Mr.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is being falsely implicated and the evidence against the applicant is not only untrustworthy but is prima facie fabricated. He invited my attention to the Test Identification Parade held on 2nd July 2009. In the said Test Identification Parade, eye witness Surendra Dhaku Dandekar could not identify the applicant. He also pointed out that before the Test Identification Parade, statement of Surendra Dhaku Dandekar was never recorded and therefore the police either did not know that Surendra Dhaku Dandekar was an eye witness or having known that he is an eye witness had failed to record his statement prior to the Test Identification Parade. Mr. Patil also invited my attention to the statement of Surendra Dhaku Dandekar which was recorded for the first time on 9th September 2009 i.e. about three months after the alleged incident and more than two months after the Test Identification Parade. In the said statement, Surendra Dhaku Dandekar has stated that he had seen the present applicant running away after assaulting Vijay Pandey. It is not clear that how Surendra Dhaku Dandekar who could not even identify the applicant in the Test Identification Parade could point out him by name (as if he knew him earlier) in the statement dated 9th September 2009. 3 5. Taking the aforesaid submissions into consideration, in my view, applicant deserves to be granted bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R Applicant be released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount subject to the conditions that applicant shall, within 48 hours of his release, inform his present residential address, residential telephone number and mobile telephone number to the concerned police station and also intimate any change therein, within 48 hours of the change and that he shall not threaten any of the prosecution witness. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)