1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1821 OF 2009 Mr Bapu Audumbar Kate .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. S.C.Hally, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 16/06/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.405 of 2008 of Nagdi Police Station, Dist-Pune. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of IPC. 3 The applicant and three others allegedly committed murder of one Ashok Patre on 18.12.2008 at about 9.45 pm. While the application was being argued by Mr Halli, learned T 2 counsel for the applicant, I specifically made him a query whether there is any eye-witness to the incident, to which he replied in positive and stated that the complainant, Dyaneshwar Mahanor and Ashok Hage are the eye-witnesses to the incidnet. When I perused their statements, I found that they were not eye-witnesses. Hence, I once again asked Mr Halli whether there are any other witnesses, who have actually seen the incident. Mr Halli replied in negative. At this state, learned APP submitted that there are three eye-witnesses to the incident and all the three have specifically named the applicant and have attributed specific over act to him. She, accordingly, invited my attention to the statements of Ankush Patre, Shatrugan Patre and RajuPatre. Mr Halli, for the reasons best known to him, did not point out the statements of these eye-witnesses. I have gone through the statements of all the three eye-witnesses. They have specifically attributed overt act to the present applicant. In my opinion, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 3