1 CA-2330.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2330 OF 2010 Umesh Ganpat Jadhav .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondent Shri M.P. Vashi i/b M/s. Ramesh Pandey & Associates for the Applicant. Ms R.V. Newton, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 24, 2010 P.C: 1. The applicant who has been arrested and charge-sheeted for his alleged involvement in the offences punishable under Sections 364- A, 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, seeks his enlargement on bail. The applicant is alleged to have kidnapped a child by name Sahil, aged 7 years, murdered him and disposed of the dead body by throwing it in a river after keeping it in a bag. This bag was purchased by the applicant from one Mohammed Mukhtar, who has identified the bag, as also the accused. The learned APP points out that 2 CA-2330.10 the SIM card which was used for making telephone calls has been traced to the applicant, as can be seen from the report of the hand-writing expert who identifies the writing on the application made for getting the SIM card to be that of the applicant. In view of this, it cannot be said that there is nothing to show the complicity of the applicant in the crime. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a student and since bail, and not jail, is the rule, on this slender piece of evidence the applicant may not be detained till he faces trial. He submits that the applicant would be available for facing the trial. He also points out that there is no direct evidence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence and no motive is attributed to the applicant. 3. I have considered all these contentions. First, it appears that the child was kidnapped for the purpose of getting money. Though calls were made even after the child was murdered, it does not follow that the complicity of the applicant would be excluded by this act. Since the charge-sheet has already 3 CA-2330.10 been filed and since the evidence about the identification of the bag in which the dead body was found, as also the application by the accused for obtaining the SIM card which was used for making the telephone calls would indicate the complicity of the applicant, the application is rejected. 4. The learned trial Judge would undoubtedly expedite the hearing of the case and would not take into consideration any observation made while deciding this application. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)