AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.975 OF 2007 Rajesh Mani Devendra ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Ms. Sharmila Kaushik for the applicant. Mr. R. More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The applicant is original accused 2. He was tried along with two others in Sessions Case No.632 of 2006 by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay at Sewree for offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC). By judgment and order dated 7/8/2007, the applicant AJN 2 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and he has been convicted under Sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant at some length. She submitted that there is no eye-witnesses to the incident in question. The prosecution case rests only on the evidence of PW-1 - the mother of the deceased and evidence of brother and friend of the brother of the deceased. She submitted that there is no credible evidence to connect the accused with the crime in question and, hence, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It is not possible for us to release the applicant on bail. We have been shown order dated 1/4/2008 passed by the Division Bench presided over by Justice F.I. Rebello, whereby the application filed by the mother of the present applicant (original accused 3) has been rejected by this court. The evidence as against all the three accused is AJN 3 similar. Since one court has appreciated the evidence and rejected the application filed by the co-accused, it is not possible for us to release the present applicant. Besides, having perused the evidence of PW-1 the mother of the deceased, we feel that the involvement of the applicant is prima facie established. The evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 lent support to the evidence of PW-1. Hence, application for bail is rejected. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]