Somnath Ramchndra Kolekar v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2391 OF 2016 Somnath Ramchandra Kolekar ... Applicant (Orig. Accd.)

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

.....

Mr.V. V. Purwant i/b. Mr.Vaibhav Gaikwad for the Applicant. Mrs.N.S.Jain, APP for the State-Respondent.

....

CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE : 27th January 2017 P.C.:

1.

This application is moved for bail, as the applicantaccused is prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 394, 397 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 181 of 2015 registered with Vaduj Police Station at the instance of Aminur Sheikh.

2.

As per the complaint dated 3rd November 2015, the complainant was proceeding from Dahivadi to Mayani, DistrictSatara with 105 gms. pure gold and cash of Rs. 1,10,000/- for his business purpose, when three persons came from backside on motorcycle and one of the persons hit the complainant on his head

and, therefore, he fell down and the motorcycle was dragged. The persons on the motorcycle came near to him and they beaten him. They took away his gold and cash. They robbed total amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-. The applicant-accused was arrested on 5th March 2016. Hence, this bail application.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that there was no evidence against the applicant-accused. He is innocent. The learned counsel also submits that there is no recovery either gold or cash from him. The motorcycle was only recovered. However, the number of motorcycle was not disclosed by the complainant in his complaint or any supplementary statement. He submits that the applicant-accused was arrested on suspicion and on the basis of statement of co-accused. The police identification parade was conducted, and the applicant-accused was not identified by the complainant. He submits that there is no criminal record against the applicant-accused. 4.

The learned prosecutor submits that the charge-sheet is filed in this case. As per identification parade the applicantaccused was not identified by the complainant. However, he was owner of the motorcycle which was used in the crime. The learned prosecutor confirms that the applicant-accused has no criminal record. She submits that the Investigating Officer is not present, though he was informed.

5.

Earlier, on 1st December 2016 when this matter appeared on board, APP had sought time for taking instructions.

Again, the matter appeared on board on 25th January 2017. It was part heard and the Investigating Officer was asked to attend the Court. Today, Investigating Officer is not present. 6.

Considering the submissions of both the counsel, and the fact that the prosecution is not in a position to point out any evidence against the applicant-accused, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant-accused on the followings terms and conditions:

ORDER

(i) The applicant-accused shall be released on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the evidence or pressurize the complainant.

(iii) The applicant- accused shall not commit any offence of similar nature.

(iv) The applicant-accused shall not jump the bail and shall attend all the dates in the Court.

(v) The applicant shall not abscond or leave India without prior permission of the Court and furnish his permanent address to the Investigating Officer alongwith documentary proof of his address.

(vi) In the event of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail.

5.

Hence, this Bail Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)