RAMAN VISHNUDATTA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant seeks enlargement on bail in Crime No.45 of 2010, registered at Kharghar Police Station initially for offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal and u/s 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act, and subsequently offence u/s 120(B) was added. On 17th February, 2010, five miscreants are alleged to have committed dacoity at the shop of Abhushan Jewellers, belonging to informant Prakash Mehta. Because of cries for help, persons around gathered and miscreants were running away. Two miscreants were chased and they were caught in a marshy land. Pistol and mobiles phones were seized from them. Those two persons were Manojkumar Rampalsingh Chavan and Shabbir Mohmed Ali Shaikh. Panchnama of their arrest and seizure of weapons, was performed on 17.2.2010 at 19.00 to 20.00 hrs. The incident of dacoity had taken place at 4.30 p.m., three other miscreants managed to run away in a car and a motorcycle. After this incident took place, on 21st February, 2010 the applicant's driver Ahuja was arrested. At that time Ahuja was with applicant in the car. The applicant himself was arrested on 24th February, 2010. In the FIR registered on 17th February, 2010 itself, there is mention of the theft of Mangalsutra weighing 4 and half tola worth Rs.80,000/-. This mangalsutra was recovered at the instance of applicant on 2.3.2010. But no attempts to have been made to have Mangalsutra identified by the informant. Likewise applicant's driver was not identified in the test identification parade as one of the miscreants. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if applicant was named as person behind the dactoity or for participation in dacoity, the applicant would not have retained the Mangalsutra which was stolen, with him after his driver's arrest on 21.02.2010, when he himself was arrested on 24.2.2010. Therefore, according to him there is nothing to connect the applicant to the crime.

(2.) '' The learned APP submits that the applicant was in contact with his driver Ahuja on mobile phone at the time of incident i.e. from 17.10 hrs to 19.00 hrs on the same day. Therefore, according to her, the link is complete and applicant's complicity in the dacoity is indicated. She also states that the Investigating Officer, in this case was asked by Wireless Message on 27.9.2010, 4.10.2010 and 14.10.2010 to come to the Court, to instruct her but he has not come. This is indeed curious in the context of the allegations made by the counsel for the applicant. According to applicant, the applicant being builder has been falsely implicated by the police. In serious offence of dacoity, if the investigating Officer chooses to keep himself away inspite of instructions by learned APP, it would difficult to refuse bail to the persons involved, particularly when his involvement depends on such a slender thread of his driver contacting a person who was caught after the crime. In view of this the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., till the case is disposed of.