1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4777 of 2009 Amit @ Pintya Gopal Ghule ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.C.D.Konale for the applicant. Ms.M.H.Mhatre. APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 20th January 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No.33 of 2009 registered at Alandi Devachi police station, District.Pune for an alleged offence punishable u/s.302 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 7th April 2009 in the night on account of a quarrel in a hotel, the applicant Anil Bahirat and Raju Jadhav assaulted Shashikant Kashinath Tupare (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who died on account of the injuries suffered in the assault. 2 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there is no eye witness to the crime. The circumstantial evidence is weak and therefore applicant deserves to be granted bail. It is true that there is no eye witness to the deadly blow inflicted to the deceased. However, owner of the hotel as well as two witnesses have given the statements in which they have stated that they witnessed that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the applicant and co-accused. They have further stated that the accused and two others assaulted and slapped the deceased who started running away. The witnesses have further stated that they saw the applicant Anil Bahirat and Raju Jadhav chasing the deceased. Thus, there is a prima facie evidence, though circumstantial, which shows complicity of the applicant to the crime. 5. The offence is serious and punishable with death of imprisonment for life. In the circumstances, the Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application of the applicant. I see no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge. Application is accordingly rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) 3