1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.975 of 2009 IN Criminal Appeal No.483 of 2008 Salim @ Raju Karamali Ansari & ors. .. Applicants (Orig.Accused Nos.1 & 2) v/s. The State of Mah. .. .. Respondent/ (Orig. Complainant) Mr.Khan Abdul Wahab for Applicants. Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP for State. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 30th November 2009 P.C. : 1. This is an Application for bail by the Applicants who have been convicted in Sessions Case No.648 of 2007 by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewri, Mumbai on 28.4.2008. They have been convicted of offence punishable under Sections 393 and 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim was robbed of his gold chain by the accused going on motor cycle. The learned Judge has relied upon the evidence of the complainant as well as the eye witness, who saw the gold chin being snatched. The 2 accused were identified as having been on the motor cycle. The complainant saw and remembered the number of the motor cycle. The complainant informed her brother-in-law and lodged a compliant. The accused were apprehended within 4 hours. Their personal search was taken. A knife, a chopper as well the gold chain were seized under panchanama. The gold chain has been recovered and brought to Court. It has been identified by the complainant. The accused were identified in a Test Identification Parade (TIP). 3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Applicant sought to show various anomalies in the evidence of the witnesses, whereas PW1 stated that accused No.1 was a pillion rider, PW4 is the eye witness, who identified accused No.2 as the pillion rider. The learned Advocate also contended that the evidence shows that the accused were shown to him before the TIP. Such evidence is not clearly brought out. There are 2 dates mentioned when the accused came to be identified. This aspect will have to be dealt with in trial. The fact remains that the gold chain was recovered from none other than accused No.2. No case for grant of bail is made out. The Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)