The court ruled that the absence of overt acts and the principle of parity support bail, emphasizing the significance of a Test Identification Parade for establishing identification.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JULY 18, 2025 P.C.:

1. The present application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , seeking his release on regular bail in connection with Crime Register No. 101 of 2024 registered with Padgha Police Station, Bhiwandi. The applicant is alleged to have committed serious offences punishable under Sections 395 (dacoity by five or more persons), 392 (robbery), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 24th February 2024 at about 6:30 a.m., the complainant, along with other persons, was travelling from Nashik to Mumbai by car. When they reached near Padgha Toll Naka, another car allegedly began following them, in which four unknown persons were travelling. It is alleged that the said persons forcibly stopped the complainant’s vehicle, threatened them, and snatched away a bag containing gold ornaments and other valuables. Thereafter, the accused persons fled from the scene towards Nashik. According to the prosecution, the number plate affixed on the car used in the offence was fake. It is further alleged that the present applicant was the one who prepared and provided the said forged number plate. The applicant was arrested on 3rd March 2024. During investigation, it is also claimed that certain gold ornaments forming part of the stolen property were recovered at the instance of the applicant. It appears that a prior application for bail moved by the applicant before the learned Sessions Court was rejected. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Court with the present bail application.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant’s role in the present crime is of a limited nature and is almost similar to that of another co-accused who has already been granted bail by this Court in Bail Application No. 452 of 2025 vide order dated 9th July 2025. She submits that the principle of parity would apply in the present case as well. It is further pointed out that the applicant was not known to the complainant or the witnesses and yet, the Investigating Officer did not conduct any Test Identification Parade (TIP). Therefore, she submits that the identity of the applicant is doubtful, and hence, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail. It is submitted that the present applicant stands on a different footing from the accused in Bail Application No. 452 of 2025. It is pointed out that a knife was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which indicates a graver role in the commission of the offence. Therefore, it is urged that the applicant does not deserve the benefit of parity, and the application may be rejected.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the material on record including the FIR, statements of witnesses, and recovery panchanama. It is not in dispute that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The allegation against the applicant is that he had prepared and supplied the forged number plate used on the vehicle involved in the incident. No overt act of robbery or dacoity is attributed to the applicant in the commission of the principal offence.

6. It is further to be noted that no Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer. The prosecution has not brought on record any