1 CRA-551.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.551 OF 2010 Vaibhav Laxman Gavali .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Kuldeep Patil i/b Pramod Kathane & Yogesh Sankpal for the Applicant. Shri J.P. Kharge, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JANUARY 07, 2011 P.C: 1. By consent, the revision application is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, rejecting the applicant's application for discharge. The applicant had been charge-sheeted along with others for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC for having participated in the brutal murder of Bhupendra @ Raju Hiralal Chaudhari, President of Lonavala 2 CRA-551.10 Municipal Council in his cabin. The only allegation against the applicant is that the applicant was present outside the office of the Municipal Council when the assailants Sumit Gavli and Jaffar Shaikh, the co-accused, came out of the municipality office with knives in their hands, hurling abuses. Two witnesses, Dashrath Bandu Chorge and Vilas Dattu Madave, state having seen the present applicant Vaibhav Laxman Gavali, Appa Gavli and one Shashikant Jadhav hurriedly leave the spot. 3. The learned APP, on instructions, submitted that the only evidence collected against the present applicant is that the applicant was present outside the municipality office at the time of the incident and had left the place hurriedly. Even if the statements of Dashrath and Vilas are taken at their face value, there is nothing to indicate the applicant's complicity in conspiracy or participation in the murder. In view of this, it is not clear as to how the learned Judge found that there was material enough to proceed against the applicant or to refuse to discharge the applicant. Even the learned trial Judge has observed that the presence of the applicant outside the office created doubt about his 3 CRA-551.10 prima facie involvement in the crime. Now whether this was sufficient for framing charge should have been considered by the learned Judge. In view of this, the revision application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the applicant before the trial Court is allowed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)