1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No. 75/2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 350/2009 Shakti Suresh Khandara vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, P.S. Wardha. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, APP for the respondent. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & P.B.VARALE, JJ DATE : 14.3.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. The applicant has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing death of Sagga Beg. The applicant is now seeking bail. The prosecution case is that the applicant along with other accused kidnapped Sagga Beg and thereafter committed his murder and threw the body in 2` deep hole which was filled with water. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no material to show that the applicant kidnapped Sagga Beg as the only witness to the alleged kidnapping P.W.6 Javed has turned hostile. No doubt as far as kidnapping concerned, there is no reliable material placed on record by the prosecution. However, there are other circumstances which connect the applicant to the death of Sagga Beg. One of the circumstances is that there is discovery of the dead body of Sagga Beg at the instance of the applicant. The body was thrown in deep hole which was filled with water. The applicant stated that he would point out the place where he had thrown the body and he led the police and panchas to the deep hole. The dead body could not be seen, hence, three persons entered in the water and after searching for some time they were able to find the dead body which was later removed from the water. This is a strong circumstance against the accused. There is also another circumstance against 3` the applicant i.e. discovery of blood stained clothes of the accused at his instance. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the clothes as per the C.A. report did not bear the blood group of the deceased, hence, it can not be said that the stains of blood on the clothes of the accused were that of the deceased. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is noticed that as per C.A. report the blood found on the clothes was human blood. The applicant has not given any explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to from where the blood stains came on his clothes. In the case of Nazar Mohamad vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 B. Cr.C., 881 and Yunus vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 All M.R. (Cri), 1507 it has observed that when the blood stains are found on articles and no explanation is furnished by the accused, it would be a strong circumstance against the accused which connects him with the crime. Besides these above two circumstances, it is noticed that the applicant had a strong motive to 4` commit the crime. The motive has been deposed by P.W. 4 Rukhasana Beg, who is the mother of the deceased and P.W. 5 Shahin Beg who is the wife of the deceased. Both these witnesses have stated that as Shahin Baig did not belong to the caste of the deceased, the fact that deceased got married to Shahin was not liked by the accused persons and prior to the incident there were frequent quarrels on this issue. Thus, we find that prima facie there is sufficient material to connect the applicant with the crime. Hence, we do not think this is a fit case to grant bail. Hence, the application is rejected. Criminal Appeal No. 350/2009 (Shakti Suresh Khandara and others vs. The State of Maharashtra ). The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he be permitted to prepare the paper books privately at his own cost and he states that if permission is granted paper books will be submitted by 31st April, 2011. Permission granted to prepare private paper books and they be submitted to the 5` Registry by 31st April, 2011. In this view of the matter, the appeal be placed on final hearing board in the week commencing from 6th June, 2011. JUDGE JUDGE patle