0510ba525.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 525 OF 2011 (Rameshwar Sadashiv Sonekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Mrs. Meena N. Hiwase, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 05TH OCT., 2011 Heard. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 8/4/2011 in Crime No. 51/2011 registered at Nandanwan Police Station, Nagpur for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, has filed the present application for bail. 3. The case of the prosecution is that one Kunal Jaiswal had planned the murder of one Vrushali Sambare and had engaged on contract Bhurya Marathe, Raju Yadav and Shrikant Sonekar to kill her with the help of one Pradeep Sahare. The murder of Ku. Monika Dashrath Kirnapure occurred due to misidentification. 4. The allegation against the present applicant who is paternal uncle of Shrikant Sonekar, i.e. accused No.4 is 0510ba525.11.odt 2/3 that, Shrikant Sonekar, after the murder of Monika, had phoned the applicant and had gone to his shop with injury to the hand and by wearing blood stained shirt along with co- accused and both handed over their blood stained clothes and Mobile of the deceased to the applicant. The applicant destroyed that Mobile at the hearth situated in his shop. Further allegation is that Shrikant Sonekar and the present applicant went to the Bank and an amount of Rs.500/- for purchase of the shirt was withdrawn. The shirt worn by Shrikant was kept at the shop of the applicant and the applicant washed the said blood stained shirt. The shirt of the applicant was given to Shrikant, for him to wear. It is also the allegation against the applicant that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was given by Shrikant to the present applicant. 5. There is on record the disclosure statement of Shrikant and recovery panchanama which reveals that the shirt, which was kept by Shrikant with the applicant, was recovered at the instance of Shrikant, whereas the shirt worn by Shrikant was recovered at the instance of the present applicant. It is also noticed that an amount of Rs.38,500/- was in the Bank account of the present applicant. According to the respondent, C.C.T.V. footage at the Bank shows both Shrikant and the present applicant at the Bank. There is also an allegation that the present applicant destroyed the mobile of the deceased, however, the same could not be attached as 0510ba525.11.odt 3/3 it was burnt in the hearth and the ash was thrown out. 6. Before this Court, Smt. Gita Maldhure- accused No.6 against whom also the allegation was of destroying the evidence had filed the bail application No.519 of 2011 and this Court, by an order dated 23/9/2011, has dismissed the said application. The position of the present applicant is not in any manner different from that of Smt. Gita Maldhure. It should be kept in mind that Section 120B of I.P.C. pertaining to criminal conspiracy has been applied in the present case. It is further seen that there is allegation that Vrushali is being threatened. 7. In the circumstances above, I am of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail, at this stage. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE wwl