13crn2789-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2789 OF 2010 Mr.Rajesh Vasant Chavan. .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Hiten S. Venegavkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 2ND JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant/orig.accused No.3 for his release on bail during pendency of the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and also 34 of IPC and also punishable under certain penal sections of Arms Act. 2. The case against the accused person, as transpired 13crn2789-10 2 from the FIR, is that on 23.11.2008 there was some altercation and hot exchange words between the maternal uncle of the deceased and some other persons. Some threats were given however by end of the day, the situation was almost pacified. However it was not so when the incident of murder took place on 24.11.2008 at broad day light at 3:15 p.m.. On the day of the incident, the victim opened his grocery/general shop and in the afternoon he was to go for some marriage function. That time when he along with his two other employees who are also eye witnesses were in the shop, co-accused Nos.2 & 5 entered the shop armed with country pistol in possession of co-accused/accused No.2. Allegedly the present applicant/accused No.3 brought the said co-accused in front of the said shop on a motorcycle. He kept the motorcycle engine running and waited on the road. Co-accused entered the shop and there was fire on the deceased probably causing his death. Both the assailants hurriedly ran away from the shop. However, they were 13crn2789-10 3 noticed by the eye witnesses and infact were named in the statements afterwards recorded by the police. Both the assailants went out and came near the waiting motorcycle which was being driven by the present applicant. He drove the said assailants away from the shop and they all flee away. The statements of two employees from the said shop were recorded on 26.11.2008 and 27.11.2008. The motorcycle was traced. It was owned by the another co-accused. 3. Considering the prima facie material as to the present applicant named in the statements, it would be insignificant as to his name is not mentioned in the FIR inasmuch as the FIR was given by the relative of the deceased when he reached the spot after hearing the gun-shot. What is material at this stage is the prima facie involvement and which has been established by the statements of these two witnesses then working in the shop. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that it is a conspiracy and infact active part is taken by the present 13crn2789-10 4 applicant by facilitating the travel of the main assailants to the shop and also creating such a circumstance that they can also flee away after the incident of shooting by present applicant keeping the motorcycle running and then taking his associates on the motorcycle for escape. 5. Considering the above prima facie material, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to release the present applicant on bail. Hence, the application is disposed of with following order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.2789 of 2010 for regular bail stands rejected and accordingly disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)