1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4649 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Sandesh D. Patil i/b Mr. Prashant Jadhav for the applicant. Mr. J.P. Kharge, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No. I-108 of 2009 registered at Mira Road Police Station, District Thane for an offence punishable under sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Previous application for bail made by the applicant before the Sessions Court has been 2 rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 6th June 2009. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the evidence against the applicant was not direct and was not enough even prima facie to connect the applicant to the crime. He firstly invited my attention to the F.I.R. lodged by Asif Abid Bagdadi – watchman and submitted that the applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. In my view, this is immaterial because Asif Bagdadi only found a body of a man lying by the side of Sai Srishti Building. The watchman only reported to the police about this fact. The first informant did not know anything about the crime and he only set the investigation in motion. Therefore, absence of mentioning of the name of the applicant in the F.I.R. does not help the applicant. 5. Secondly, counsel for the applicant then 3 submitted that there was no recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act nor was any weapon seized from the applicant and this shows the innocence of the applicant. Discovery of something under section 27 of the Evidence Act is not a sine qua non for the conviction and, therefore, non-discovery and non-seizure of the weapon used for the crime is not a proof of innocence of the applicant. 6. According to the prosecution, the victim was killed on account of a quarrel arising out of teasing of a girl friend of Munna and consequent to the slaps given by the deceased, a friend of Munna, to the teasers. There is prima facie evidence as to the motive. The applicant has also been identified in the identification parade. Learned Sessions Judge, before whom the charge-sheet has been filed, after scanning the evidence has recorded a prima facie opinion that there is prima facie evidence connecting the applicant to the crime. 4 It is true that the Sessions Judge has not elaborately discussed the evidence against the applicant to the crime, but that is in conformity with the dicta laid down in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram – AIR 1980 SC 785. Suffice it to say that there is a finding recorded by the Sessions Judge, who had access to the entire material filed with the charge-sheet, that the applicant was connected to the crime and I see no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the Sessions Judge in this regard. The application for bail is therefore rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)