1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 of 2008 Santosh Dada Adsul .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mrs.Pranali Kakade i/b S.P. Hulyalkar for the applicant. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 22nd February 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has been charged with an offence of murder of Abu shaikh punishable u/s.302 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief is that the applicant invited Abu - the deceased to his house on the 2 occasion of his birthday on 25th October 2007. There the deceased was assaulted by the applicant and three others viz. Dada More, Sunny More and Sambha Sinte with swords and farshi (type of stone used for flooring). Someone telephoned the house of the deceased whereupon the brother, mother and sister of the deceased arrived at the spot. They saw the assault, and cries raised shouts whereupon the assailants ran away.i 3. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the statement of the mother and brother who are alleged to be the eye witnesses, and submitted that they have not specifically named the applicant as one of the assailants but have only named the other three assailants by name. She therefore submitted that there is no prima facie evidence regarding the complicity of the applicant and the applicant deserves bail. 4. Learned APP however submitted that the deceased was invited by the applicant under the pretext of his birthday but with a real intention of killing him on account of the alleged illicit relationship the deceased had with his sister. She also invited my attention to the recovery of the sword which was made at the instance of the 3 applicant. There is thus prima facie material showing complicity of the applicant in crime. 5. The offence is a serious offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Taking into consideration the prima facie evidence regarding the complicity of the applicant and seriousness of the offence, in my view, the applicant is not entitled to bail. 6. The applicant had previously made an application for bail before the Sessions Judge. By an order dated 30th January 2008, the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application. I see no reason to take a view different than the view taken by the Sessions Court. The application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J)