-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1216 OF 2009 Raosaheb Vitthal Pisal .. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. V.B. Mantri, instructed by Mr. S. Hulyalkar, for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.V. MORE, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2010. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This is the third application filed by the applicant, original accused No.2, for bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal. The applicant is convicted by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay at Sewree under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, there is no evidence connecting the applicant regarding the alleged offence. -2- 3. The case of the prosecution is that the wife of the applicant was having illicit relationship with deceased Ravindra and in view of that the applicant gave contract for killing the said Ravindra. It is a case of contract killing. The learned trial Judge convicted original accused Nos. 1,2, 4 and 5 under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The present applicant is accused No.2 in the said case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no witness has given the name of the applicant showing that he was present at the scene of offence. It is required to be noted that the case of the prosecution is that the applicant hired certain persons for killing deceased Ravindra. In that view of the matter, naturally there is no question of applicant being present at the scene of offence. In our view, all these points can be decided at the time of deciding the appeal. However, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no evidence against the present applicant in any manner. 4. As stated above, the applicant twice preferred bail applications which came to be withdrawn. This is the third application. It is true that the said bail applications were withdrawn in view of the fact that the Court was not inclined to grant bail. On prima facie scrutiny of the evidence, we are of the view that this is not a case in which the accused is required to be released on bail during the pendency of appeal. The application is accordingly rejected. 5. Liberty is granted to the applicant to apply for early date of hearing -3- and if any such application is made, the same shall be considered on its own merits. It is clarified that the observations in this order should be treated only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it will have no bearing so far as the pending appeal is concerned. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.V. MORE, J.