1 Appln 4081-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4081 OF 2010 Vaijya alias Vaijyanath Dinkar .Applicants Patil & anr. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.Prashant Patil, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.Geeta Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 8TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. . This is an application by two persons, who have been arrested in connection with C.R.No.I-234 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 for murder of one Jaydas Ulvekar seek bail. Jaydas was threatened by the 1st applicant Vaija alias Vaijanath Patil. One Vilas Patil reported that he saw unknown assailants fired 2 Appln 4081-10 at Jaydas, dragged Jaydas out of Hotel and hit him with stone. The applicants have been identified by him at the Test Identification Parade. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicants states that Vilas has filed an Affidavit stating that he already new the applicant Vaija alias Vaijanath and Sushil and therefore, there is no question of his not naming those persons. In the Affidavit, the first informant had stated that he had given report at the instance of relation of Jaydas and he had not noted how the persons who had fired at Jaydas looked like. The learned APP submits that this Affidavit was filed on 19th January, 2010. On 18th July, 2009 the informant had also identified the applicants at Test Identification Parade. Thus, according to the learned APP, this Affidavit of the informant which now surfaces is clearly an attempt to tamper with the evidence. The 3 Appln 4081-10 learned Counsel for the applicants next submitted that one Shantakumar Lingayat was another witness, who had identified the applicant Vaija alias Vaijanath at the Test Identification Parade had attributed role of firing to Vaija alias Vaijanath, whereas informant Vilas Patil attributed firing to accused Sushil Varma. She specifically submits that before Test Identification Parade was held, informant was shown photographs in the police station. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP showing an album of photographs in the police station does not amount to guiding the informant to identify a particular person. Police showed Album of photographs of Criminals out of which informant pointed to the photograph of Vaija alias Vaijanath. So this also amounts to holding Test Identification by photographs and does not amount to guiding the informant to identify a particular person. In any case this aspect would be looked into by the 4 Appln 4081-10 learned trial Judge in view of the evidence collected. 3. Statement of the informant recorded on 20th May, 2009 shows that one Vaija alias Vaijanath was heard to have been abusing and threatening deceased Jaydas. In view of all this, the applicants are not entitled to bail. 4. Criminal Application is rejected. None of the observations made by this Court while deciding any bail application would be considered by the trial Judge while appreciating evidence during the trial. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)