IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 780 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2009 GANESH VASUDEV @ EKNATH BANDEKAR.. .. APPLICANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. .. RESPONDENT Mr. A. K. Moily for the applicant Mr. Rajesh More, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 16/7/2010 P.C. The applicant was tried by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay at Sewree in Sessions Case No. 716 of 2008 for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Appeal of the applicant has been admitted. He has sent this application through jail. 2. The applicant is charged for committing murder of one Prabhakar by use of fire arm on 22/7/07. The complainant is PW 1 Namrata wife of deceased Prabhakar Sarang. It appears that Namrata’s father had married second time. PW 4 Vasundhara is his wife. She is the step mother of PW 1 Namrata. PW 7 Rajesh is the step brother of Namrata. The applicant is also son of PW 4 Vasundhara. He is the step brother of PW 1 Namrata. Namrata’s uncle Parshuram Bandekar entered her name as his nominee of a flat at Worli in the record of the society. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant did not like this. He wanted his share in the said flat. It appears that in 2007 the applicant had met the Secretary of the society in which the said flat is situate. In this connection Namrata had lodged a N.C. complaint at Dadar Police Station on 12/3/07. According to the prosecution on 22/7/07 in the evening when deceased Prabhakar had gone to the market at about 7 p.m., the applicant shot him dead in the compound of Balvikas School, Worli. The deceased was taken to K.E.M. Hospital. In the night PW 1 Namrata received a phone call from K.E.M. Hospital. Namrata, therefore, rushed to the hospital and found her husband dead. She lodged her F.I.R. expressing suspicion about the applicant. On the basis of her F.I.R. investigation was set into motion and the applicant was arrested on 30/7/08, one year after the date of incident. 3. According to the prosecution in the meantime on 11/9/07 the applicant opened fire at PW 4 Vasundhara and PW 7 Rajesh as he wanted his share in another flat situated at Juhu which belonged to his father. In respect of this PW 4 Vasundhara filed a complaint at the Juhu Police Station. PW 18 Dhiraj Koli recorded that complaint. After his arrest on 30/7/08 a revolver came to be recovered from the applicant. The Asst. Chemical Analyzer’s report confirmed that the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased were fired from the said revolver. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the applicant as aforesaid on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant at some length. He has strenuously contended that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. He submitted that PW 9 Jokim Karwalo who is said to have seen the deceased and the applicant going inside the building has not been believed by learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, the conviction of the applicant is unsustainable. 5. In our opinion, it is not possible to release the applicant on bail. The evidence on record prima facie points to the guilt of the applicant. We find the evidence of PW 1 Namrata, PW 4 Vasundhara and PW 7 Rajesh to be cogent and credible. 6. It is pertinent to note that fire arm was recovered from the applicant after his arrest. The prosecution has examined the Assistant Chemical Analyser. He is PW 14. He has examined the revolver that came to be recovered from the accused. He also examined the live cartridges recovered from the accused. He then examined the bullet taken out from the body of the deceased. He also examined the hollow pin i.e. cover of the fired bullet and then formed opinion that pistol was live and was found operated in the past. He further observed that 11 cartridges having particular number of KF 7.65mm pistol cartridges can be possibly fired from the said pistol. He further observed that the bullet that was taken out from the body of deceased was also fired from the said revolver. He further observed that the bullet taken out from the body of the deceased and the empty cover of fired bullet were tallying with each other. 7. As regards second incident of opening of fire at the house of PW 4 Vasundhara by the applicant the cover of fired bullet and bullet recovered from the house of PW 4 Vasundhara were also sent to the Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser opined that the bullet and bullet cover found in the house of PW 4 Vasundhara tallied with the bullet that was found in the body of the deceased. 8. Thus the evidence on record prima facie discloses that the applicant entertained a grudge in his mind against PW 4 Vasundhara as he wanted his share in Juhu flat which was not given to him. For that purpose he opened fire at the Juhu flat. The applicant also wanted his share in the Worli flat of which PW 1 Namrata was a nominee. He had met the Secretary of the society in that connection. The Chemical Analyzer’s report supports the prosecution case that the applicant opened fire at Juhu and the applicant shot Prabhakar dead. Besides the applicant was absconding for one year. In our prima facie opinion, the prosecution has proved its case against the applicant. 9. Hence the bail application is rejected. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)