1 777.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.777 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.202 OF 2008 Kiran Sampat Badhekar ...Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Mrs.A.N.Pathan, Advocate appointed for the Applicant. Ms.S.V.Gajare, A.P.P. for Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED :- OCTOBER 13, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. After going through the relevant evidence on record, in our opinion, this is not a case for grant of bail. There is evidence of PW 7 who has spoken about the victim and the accused having been last seen together. PW 7 incidentally was minor at the relevant time. We have also evidence on record to indicate that two phone calls were made on 29th May 2005 on the residential telephone of PW 3 which were traced to PCO. The PCO owners were examined as PW 4 and PW 6 who have confirmed that some boy between the age of 25 to 30 years had visited 2 777.10.sxw their PCO on 29th May 2005 and made phone call. They have also stated that no lady or girl had made phone call from their PCO at the relevant time. PW 8 has also spoken about the behaviour and conduct of the accused after the incident in question. PW 3 has spoken about the extra judicial confession made by accused on 17th September 2005. The Trial Court has considered these aspects amongst other evidence to record finding of guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 2. In the circumstances, Application is rejected. Since prayer for bail is rejected, Appeal shall proceed as per its turn under caption `convicts in jail’. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)