1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1400 OF 2009 Lahu Narayan Nanaware .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Ms.Pranali Kakade i/b Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar for the applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.181 of 2008 of Paud police station, Pune. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and three others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that the present applicant alongwith three others hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased - Sopan Kamble. It appears that the father of the deceased had borrowed some amount from the applicant, and since it was not paid, the applicant hatched a conspiracy and killed the 2 2 2 deceased - Sopan Kamble. According to the prosecution the applicant sought help of the contract killers to kill Sopan Kamble. There is a statement of one Jamal Shaikh, working with the present applicant, stating that he paid certain amount to accused no.2 - Genu Bhau at the instance of the present applicant immediately after the occurrence i.e. on 18.12.2008. There is an evidence in the form of print-outs showing several calls made by the applicant to accused no.2 and by accused no.2 to the applicant on their mobile just before and after the incident. There seem to be sufficient material on record to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. He seems to be the main conspirator. Keeping that in view and considering the evidence of payment made by the applicant through Jamal Shaikh to the main assailants and several mobile calls made before and after the alleged incident, in my opinion, this is not fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence the application is rejected. . While passing this order 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. 3 3 3 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)