1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 2865 OF 2009 Mr Mahesh Gorakh Salunke .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Rohan V Nahar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 16/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.11 of 2009 of Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and two others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of IPC. 3. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, according to the prosecution, against the applicant are : motive, extra judicial confession, conduct of the T 2 accused and recovery of blood stained clothes of the applicant at his instance. It appears, immediately after the occurrence the applicant disclosed the alleged incident to Sanjay Dinkar Gaikwad. I have perused his statement. He has state in detail as to how he was informed by the applicant about the commission of offence. This circumstance coupled with other circumstances, namely, recovery of blood stained clothes and motive, in my opinion, are sufficient at this stage to connect the applicant to the incident. Moreover, there is one more case pending against the applicant under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. While rejecting this application, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 3