1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1185 OF 2009 Vijay Purshottam Salvi ..... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. Dinesh Ujinwal for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17th March, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application filed for anticipatory bail by the applicant who apprehends arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 149, 324, 302, 452, 120(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 37(1)(a) of the Arms Act read with section 35 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. Prosecution case is that the applicant alongwith others had conspired to kill the Secretary of the Society as there were number of disputes between the present applicant and the deceased. 4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant 2 was not present at the time when the said offence took place and that he was abroad at the relevant time. He submitted that there is no material on record to connect the present applicant with commission of the said offence. It is submitted that the charge- sheet already has been filed and that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the police provided interim protection is granted to him. 5. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased had filed a complaint against the present applicant and had expressed his apprehension that he would be killed by the applicant and his associates and had sought police protection. The learned APP submits that there was correspondence between the applicant and the deceased which clearly indicated that there were disputes between the two parties. It is submitted that therefore there was strong motive for eliminating the deceased. It is submitted that there was criminal conspiracy between the applicant and the other accused to eliminate the deceased. It is further submitted that accused Nos. 1 to 6 were the personal bodyguards of the present applicant. 6. There is much substance in the submissions made by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Since allegation against the present applicant is that he had conspired alongwith other accused in committing murder of the deceased on account of prior disputes, there was motive of the applicant to eliminate the deceased with the help of 3 his own associates. Applicant was absconding and not available for interrogation and, as such, the Investigating Officer is entitled to seek custodial interrogation of the applicant. 7. In my view, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the serious allegations which are made against the present applicant, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)