Girish Devidas Tayade v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Cri. Appln. No. 6991/14

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6991 OF 2014 Girish Devidas Tayade ....Applicant.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent.

Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, APP for State.

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 19th January, 2015.

ORDER :

1.

The application is filed for bail. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the papers of investigation. 2.

It appears that present applicant was convicted and sentenced under the provisions of Arms Act and he was undergoing sentence. He was released on parole in one case in the past and during the parole period, the present offence is committed by the applicant.

3.

The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Yogesh Somani. On 21.1.2013 he and his colleagues had collected cash from a bank in respect of jinning and processing factory and they were returning to Parola. Allegations are made

Cri. Appln. No. 6991/14 that their car was intercepted by another vehicle, Scorpio vehicle and from this Scorpio vehicle some persons including present applicant came down. Applicant was holding a revolver and on the point of revolver, he gave threats to complainant and his driver and compelled them to open the dickey of the car. Mobile handset of the complainant was taken over. Allegations are made that mobile handsets of others were taken away and they took away the bag containing cash amount. The amount of around Rs. 53 lakh was taken away and other articles like mobile handsets were also taken away.

4.

The papers of investigation contain the material to show that present applicant was involved in the offence. The amount of Rs. 12.42 lakh was recovered from him and some live cartridges were also recovered from him and he was the person who used the fire arm. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and as there is possibility that he may commit similar offence and as there is possibility of absconding, this Court holds that applicant does not deserve the bail.

5.

The application is rejected.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/