← Library
Bombay High CourtBA/1958/2014other disposed off

Angad Vijaypal Chauhan v. The State Of Maharashtra

2015-03-19Hon'Ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE - CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1958 OF 2014 Angad Vijaypal Chauhan .... Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Nitin Sejpal with Ms Pooja Bhojne for the Applicant.

Ms Rutuja Ambekar, APP, for the RespondentState. CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATED: MARCH 19, 2015 P.C:

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

2.

By this application, the applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No.362 of 2013, registered with the D.B. Marg Police Station, District Mumbai for the alleged offences punishable under Sections

452, 394, 395, 397 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 37 and 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

3.

The incident in question has taken place on 31-12-2013, at about 8:30 p.m. when the complainant was closing his Vodafone Agency Office. It is alleged by the complainant that four unknown persons came in the said office and physically pushed the complainant and took a bag containing cash amount. One accused is alleged to have shown a knife and a scuffle is alleged to have taken place. The complainant sustained injuries on his forehead and left eye. Thereafter, the four unknown persons left away with a black rexine bag containing Rs.3,20,200/-. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial has commenced and the complainant has so far not identified the applicant despite the fact that

he was identified in the identification parade. 4.

The learned APP opposes the bail application. She submits that charge has been framed and one witness has been examined in the said case.

5.

Perused the charge-sheet. From the material on record it appears that there is recovery of Rs.15,000/- at the instance of the applicant and the applicant has been identified in the identification parade.

6.

Considering the nature of the allegations, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Apart from the said fact, the trial has also commenced and one witness has been examined. Accordingly, the application is rejected.

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)