( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.503 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.503 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.503 OF 2008 Mr.Faiem alias Lala Ibrahim Khan .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.A.M.Saraogi for applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Saraogi for the applicant and Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is arrested under Section 302 r/w. 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code vide C.R.No.I-125 of 2007 of Manickpur police station. 3. The incident is of 2.4.2007 and the applicant came to be arrested after about 1 and half month i.e. on 22.5.2007. 4. After having heard learned Advocates on both ( 2 ) the sides, it is seen that there is no direct evidence against the applicant so as to allege that he had participated in the commission of offence, thereby causing death of Munnabhai alias Mohammed Naiem Ibrahim Khan - the deceased. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for State Mr.Saste pointed out to the Court, statement of Manoj Sagare, a witness recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After having gone through the said statement, it is clear that the said witness Mr.Manoj Sagare heard certain conversation between the applicant, co-accused Mr.Haresh alias Harsh Prabhakar Patil and Mr.Kamlesh alias Babla alias Bablya Shankar Malpedi as regards plan of causing injuries to Munnabhai-deceased while said Mr.Manoj Sagare was driving the vehicle. This aspect was pressed into service by the learned A.P.P. Mr.Saste contending that the talk may go to show that strokes are to be inflicted upon Munnabhai-deceased and that there was plan to kill Munnabhai. The later statement of Mr.Manoj Sagare goes to indicate that Mr.Kamlesh the co-accused informed Mr.Sagare on 3.4.2007 that Munnabhai has been killed and Mr.Sagare should not disclose this fact to anybody. 6. If this is the material before the Court, the ( 3 ) question is whether a prima-facie case is made out and in my view, the statement of Mr.Sagare points in the direction of the complexity of the present applicant in the matter of causing death of Munnabhai. If the present applicant was not concerned with causing death of Munnabhai apart from what Mr.Sagare heard in the car, there was no reason for the present applicant to tell Mr.Sagare about the death of Munnabhai. The last paragraph of statement of Mr.Sagare can be treated as an extra judicial confession. 7. In my view, the aforesaid material is sufficient to implicate the present applicant in the present crime as a conspirator as it is well settled that in every case, there would not be direct evidence of hatching the conspiracy. 8. Apart from this, it is relevant to note that the incident is of 2.4.2007 and the applicant came to be arrested on 22.5.2007 which goes to show that the applicant could not be arrested by the police soon after the occurrence. For the reasons mentioned above, I am inclined to observe that this is not a case where this Court should exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application will have to be rejected. Hence, I pass the following order :- ( 4 ) a) The application for bail is rejected. It is open for the present applicant to apply to the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the case is pending for taking up trial expeditiously. After such an application is filed, the learned Judge would consider the same in the proper perspective. b) Application, therefore, stands rejected. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)