1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2011 Pappu @ Ramesh Karsan Satra ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. Sujit B. Shelar ,adv. For the Applicant. Ms P.P.Shinde, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 3, 2011. P.C. 1 Applicant seeks to be released on bail in crime no.509 of 2010 registered at Sahar Police Station, Bombay for the offences under sections 302, 120B r/w section 34 of the I.P.C. 2 Prosecution case, in brief, is that applicant Pappu @ Ramesh Satra, the first informant Sadashiv Shetty and the deceased Bhursingh Solanki @ Kaka were running business of scrap in partnership. Deceased Bhursingh was residing on the upper floor of the shop. On 17.8.2010 at about 10 p.m. shop was closed and Bhursingh went to the first floor while the complainant Sadashiv left for his house. On 18.8.2010 at about 5.30 a.m. the complainant opened the shop. For sometime he waited for Bhursingh but he did not turn up. Then he went 2 to the room of Bhursingh and found that he was lying dead in the pool of blood and he immediately lodged report at Sahar Police station. P.M. Report reveals that Bhursingh had died because of hemorrhage and shock due to incised and stab wounds. During the investigation, accused no.1 Suresh Kamble, Ajay @ Lalya Dhotre and Rajendra Yellana came to be arrested as assailants. According to the prosecution, accused no.1 Suresh Kamble had made a statement on 10.12.2010 that the present applicant had given Supari or contract to kill Bhursingh for a consideration of Rs.15 lac and accordingly, Suresh and his companions killed Bhursingh. Weapons as well as blood stained clothes were recovered on the basis of information given by Suresh and his companions. No amount was recovered from any of them. According to the prosecution, present applicant had failed to make the payment and, therefore, telephonic calls were being received by the present applicant to make the payment and the applicant had informed the person on phone that he could not make such huge payment of Rs.40 lac but he could pay up to Rs.5 lac. As per telephonic record, such calls took place on 23rd September, 2010 and thereafter. Such calls were being received by the applicant for about 15 days. As per the statement of one Jyoti Naidu, thereafter one evening, two persons came to the office of the 3 applicant. That time applicant was not present. One of them showed pistol and told Jyoti to ask her boss that he was called at 4 p.m. on phone but none of them appears to be accused no.1 Suresh as she was acquainted with him. The learned APP concedes that prosecution could not find any evidence about the motive and except the statement of accused Suresh, there is no other evidence to establish conspiracy. 3 In view of the above facts and circumstances, accused/applicant be released on his executing PR of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and he shall also report at Sahar Police Station on every Monday between 4 to 7 p.m. till the end of the trial. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)