1 APPA332.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.203 OF 2009 KJ Raju Shrikisan Dabriya )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ---- Mr.H.E.Mooman for the applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik APP for the respondent/state. ---- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 16/6/2011. PC 1 This applicant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life and fine. He is also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392 read with 397 & 201 read with 34 of IPC by the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, at Sewree, by 2 APPA332.11.sxw his judgment and order dated 6.1.2009. 2 The applicant/accused along with other co-accused have challenged the said judgment and order in appeal. Appellant and co-accused are real brothers. Pending appeal, this bail application is filed. 3 Deceased Ravi Madhavan Devendra was dealing in sale and purchase of the vehicles. On 22.4.2006, he left his house at 9.15 A.M in Tata Safari, bearing No.MH-02-NA-2977 and did not return home. On 24.4.2006 his brother Kannan Madhavan Devendra gave FIR as Ravindra was found dead and his body was found in a gunny bag in Sea near Vashi bridge. It is stated that there were meetings held between the appellant and the deceased about sale of Tata Safari. There was even dispute about the price and payment in respect of Tata Safari; therefore, deceased Ravindra refused to give delivery of the vehicle to the applicant/accused. This led to altercations between them on the night of 22.4.2006. Applicant/accused with the help of co-accused his brother 3 APPA332.11.sxw Mahendra killed Ravindra by strangulation and by hitting on the head and thereafter they tried to destroy evidence by throwing body in the Sea at Vashi. 4 Learned Counsel Mr.Moomen for the applicant has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution is very weak. The prosecution could not prove motive and entire case of the prosecution stands on only circumstantial evidence. The evidence of the Complainant speaks only suspicion. He further submitted that police have tried to connect the applicant/accused with the crime only on the basis of discovery panchanama which is in fact, a planted evidence. He argued that the police relied on the evidence of the jeweller PW-9 Mukesh Laxmilal Kothari. Learned Judge has relied on the evidence of the jeweller from whom gold chain of the deceased was recovered which was sold by the applicant/accused to the said jeweller. He pointed out that in fact, the applicant/accused was in the custody when such alleged sale of gold chain has taken place. He further submitted that the applicant/accused is a cobbler and has no connection with the deceased and has been 4 APPA332.11.sxw falsely implicated by the police. He pointed out that the applicant/accused was on bail through out the trial and therefore, he may be released on bail pending appeal. 5 Learned APP opposed this bail application and has submitted that the witnesses have deposed that they have seen the applicant/accused along with the vehicle of the deceased. He pointed out that the mobile phone and gold chain of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused and the deceased was brutally murdered by the applicant/accused. Learned APP further pointed out that the bail application filed by Mahendra Shrikisan Dabriya is rejected by this court. 6 Perused the judgment and the evidence filed along with the bail application. The witnesses have deposed about the talks and the meetings between the deceased and the applicant/accused regarding sale and purchase of Tata Safari vehicle. The record discloses that the prosecution has examined PW-24 Tarlochansing Mahendrasingh Kashyap on the point of details about the 5 APPA332.11.sxw business talks between the deceased and the accused in respect of Tata Safari. We also considered the evidence of PW-2 Farmanali Samsuddin Shaikh. In the FIR though PW-15 Kannan Madhavan Devdndra-the complainant has not mentioned about Nokia phone and a gold chain of the deceased, he has stated in the substantive evidence about the same. The record shows that there is a recovery panchanama of these two articles. Body was also discovered under panchanama at the instance of the accused. 7 Considering the nature of the evidence, we are not inclined to grant bail. Moreover, Criminal Bail Application No.2108 of 2009 filed by the Mahendra Shrikisan Dabriya who has played a secondary role, is rejected by this Court on 18.7.2009. Hence, applicant accused is not entitled to bail. Application is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (NARESH H.PATIL,J)