SHIVAJI YALLAPPA MANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) THE applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No.135 of 2008 of Trombay police station. THE said case is mainly under Sections 392, 170, 420 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) MR.Thakur the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the statement of the victim shows that some time before 12:00 p.m. the victim Bansilal was in a bus at Vashi, Navi Mumbai and he was made to get down from the bus by the applicant and another person. These persons made the applicant sit in an autorickshaw. At about 12 p.m., they all had lunch in a hotel. Then the victim was taken towards Lonavala by these persons. At about 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. they again stopped at another hotel where they ate food. Then they proceeded towards Lonavala where Bansilal came to be robbed. However, the affidavit filed by the APP and the annexures thereto specially the statement of API Surekha Medhe shows that on the day of the incident the applicant had reported for duty between 11:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at Mantralaya, Mumbai. The distance between Mantralaya and Vashi, Navi Mumbai is approximately 40 kms. In such case, in view of the statement of API Surekha Medhe, on which the prosecution has placed great reliance, it does appear that the applicant could not have participated in the incident. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.