cran2963.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2963 OF 2011 Arjun @ Bandu s/o Sakharam Tambe ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Mr. A.D.Sugdare, advocate for the applicant Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM: SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties finally. Perused the investigation papers, which were made available for inspection. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant Arjun @ Bandu Sakharam Tambe, seeking regular bail in connection with crime No. 11 of 2011 registered at Chikalthana police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B r.w.34 of I.P.C. 3 It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Saluba Daspute, the father of the deceased viz. cran2963.11 -2- Baburao on 24.1.2011. It appeared that, initially the victim Baburao met with an accidental death involving a motor-cycle. However, during the course of investigation, it revealed that it was a contract killing at the instance of victim's wife viz. Sunita, who contacted with the present applicant to kill the victim Baburao for a consideration of Rs.50,000/-. 4 Pertinently, there is discovery of blood stained wooden log and clothes at the instance of the applicant under recovery panchanama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which apparently is the incriminating piece of evidence against the applicant herein. Moreover, there is also recovery of mobile phone at the instance of the present applicant under panchanama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and allegedly the said mobile phone was being used by the victim Baburao, having number 9764822233 allegedly belonged to Smt. Savita Khurapane. 5 The investigating agency has also pointed out the mobile phone used by the applicant bore number 9850509653 and the mobile phone which in fact belonged to the victim Baburao which was being used by his wife Sunita was having number 7875398157. Pertinently, it is pointed out from the record obtained from the concerned mobile company that there was frequent conversation between the applicant from mobile No. 9850509653 and the mobile which was being used cran2963.11 -3- by Sunita bearing No. 7875398157, and more particularly, on the date of the incident i.e. on 19.1.2011 and thereafter also on 20.1.2011, which apparently amounts to incriminating piece of evidence against the applicant and it raises finger of guilt against him. 6 Having comprehensive view of the matter and considering the material collected during the course of investigation against the applicant, although the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, the complicity of the applicant in the crime is apparent and therefore, he does not deserve the grant of bail. 7 In the result, present application lacks merit and therefore, stands dismissed. 8 The above observations made are prima facie in nature and the same may not be used in any matter to be decided on merits. 9 The present application stands disposed of finally. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) rlj/ cran2963.11 -4-