.UP 10 2; Draft, newuniplex; -n -PA4 -dFX-NORMAL -y -e; dumbp L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R .PL58 .SP2 ................L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..............J abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3485 OF 2007 .HE2 - # - .SP1 Santosh Ramchandra Malbhar .. Applicant V/s State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Vikas Shivkarkar for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 29TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. :@@ AAAA .SP2 1.‰ Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2.‰ The applicant is charged for an offence punishable under sections 302, 394 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.‰ The prosecution case is that on the night between 16th and 17th November 2006, the applicant along with a co-accused entered the house of Smt. Shakuntala Krishnaji Dhavle and by causing her death decamped with several ornaments on her person. The applicant was arrested on 20th November 2006 and in pursuance of his statement, ornaments were recovered under a discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thus, there is prima facie evidence to connect the applicant to the crime. 4.‰ Learned A.P.P. submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and four chapter cases were filed against him bearing nos.67/2000, 1/2001, 10/2001 and 51/2004 under sections 110 and 151 of the Cr.P.C. Apart from that, the applicant is also involved in two crimes, one is punishable under sections 324, 504 and 34 of the I.P.C. and another punishable under section 3 of MOCCA. Sessions Case Nos.295/2000 and 3060/2007 are pending against the applicant in respect of the said two crimes. 5.‰ In the circumstances, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the fact that there is prima facie evidence connecting the applicant with the crime and also taking into consideration the possibility of his repeating crimes as he is alleged to be involved in other crimes, I do not think this is a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Application is accordingly rejected. 6.‰ All observations made herein are prima facie for the purpose of deciding this application and the Sessions Court shall not be in any way influenced by these observations at the time of trial. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)