[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2437 OF 2008 Rahul Balu Sutar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Sayaji D.Nangre Advocate for Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.10 of 2008 of Radhanagari Police Station. The said case is mainly under Sections 302 and 201 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant alongwith other accused committed murder of Uday. The complainant is the father of Uday. The statement of the complainant shows that on 11.1.2008 the applicant along with one other person came to call Uday. Uday went with the applicant and the other accused. In the morning, the complainant found that Uday had not come, hence, he [-2-] made enquiries with the applicant on his mobile phone. The applicant told the complainant that he had left Uday at Phulewadi Naka by rickshaw, however, thereafter, dead body of Uday was found on the roadside at village Thikpurli, Taluka Radhanagari, Dist. Kolhapur. The statements of the prosecution witnesses show that the applicant along with co accused had taken Uday in critical condition to two different hospitals in Kolhapur city. The case of the applicant is that Uday died due to heavy intoxication of liquor. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the post mortem notes. Had it been a fact that the condition of Uday became critical on account of the fact that he had consumed a huge amount of liquor, in such case, the applicant ought to have taken Uday to his house or informed the family members of Uday. However, it is seen that dead body of Uday was found at a place far away from Kolhapur city. Looking to the entire material on record, it appears prima facie that the applicant is involved in this matter, hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. 5. Application is rejected. [-3-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]