IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.3088 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3088 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3088 OF 2008 Pankaj Ramesh Pawar, .. Applicant Vs State of Maharshtra, .. Respondent Smt.Revati Mohite Dere, for the applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, APP for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 16/10/2008 DATE : 16/10/2008 DATE : 16/10/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Ms.Mohite-Dere, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Saste, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicant has prayed for bail in C.R.No.67 of 2007 of Paud Police Station, Pune. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and 7 others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 120(B) of IPC. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances on which the prosecution has relied upon to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence are as follows: recovery of motor cycle, which was allegedly used by the applicant in committing the offence, and recovery of the applicant’s blood stained full-pant which he was allegedly wearing at the relevant time. Except these two circumstances, there is no other circumstance on which the prosecution is relying upon to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. It appears that initially there was a love affair between the deceased Jivan and Shruti. Their affair was not liked by the father of Shruti and, therefore, he, with the help of other accused, allegedly eliminated Jivan. The present applicant is hardly 19 years old boy and he is a friend of another accused Umesh Satpute. The said Umesh Satpute, according to the prosecution, was Shruti’s another boy-friend. There is no other material to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. The FIR is totally silent as far as the present applicant is concerned. None of the eye-witnesses has identified the applicant. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, this is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the following order. 3. The applicant to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to condition that he shall report to the concerned police station every alternate Saturday between 9 am and 10 am till conclusion of the trial. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)