1 ba 924 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.924 OF 2011 Sagar M. Kather .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. Tushar Chavan, for the applicant. Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : 20th August, 2011. P.C.: 1. This is an application for bail by a person, who is alleged to have murdered a 43 years woman, having 18 year old daughter with whom he was allegedly having illicit relations. The applicant was last seen together with the victim by one Pushpa Vijay Rathi. She stated that the applicant and the victim were seen by her in the red coloured car. This red car was belonging to Pawan Varma, who is applicant’s employer. In the spot panchnama, the panchas have stated the car was of maroon colour and not red. This, in my opinion does not make much difference, at least for the purpose of considering bail application as the colours maroon 2 ba 924 of 2011 and red are not too distinct colours in the spectrum. The learned trial Judge will look into that aspect at the trial. 2. As far as discovery of dead body is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Vijender -vs- State of Delhi, (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171, to support his contention that statement relating to a fact which has already been discovered is not admissible. Since body was discovered earlier, statement of accused showing spot subsequently is irrelevant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the evidence as to last seen together was found to be weak piece of evidence and for this purpose, he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court, in case of Lakhanpal -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, 1979 (3) SCC 256. In case of Lakhanpal -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court had found that the accused was just 17 years old boy and therefore had found it difficult to accept that he could commit the offence without encountering any resistance. Whether the victim had resisted or not can be considered at the trial. Considering the circumstantial evidence, namely that the applicant had illicit intimacy with victim; he moved from place to place with victim; the applicant was last seen together with the victim in a car, which was found abandoned and it was ultimately found 3 ba 924 of 2011 belonging to applicant’s master, who had already reported that the car was missing, the applicant is not entitled to bail. Application is rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)