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 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3694 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3694 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3694 OF 2008 Abhishek Shirish Patil, Applicant. Vs The State of Maharashtra, Respondent. Mr A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel, for the applicant. Mr J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 28/11/2008 DATE : 28/11/2008 DATE : 28/11/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr.Yagnik, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.122 of 2008 of Shahupuri police station, Kolhapur. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302,307 read with 452 of IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that on the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd April, 2008 the applicant killed his grand-mother with hammer and also caused serious injuries to his brother, who, at the relevant time, were sleeping in the same bed room. Though the complaint is lodged by the accused himself, by giving a different story, according to the prosecution, there are strong circumstances on record, which clearly point to the applicant being a person, who committed the offence. During the fateful night, the applicant, his brother Veeren and his grand mother were sleeping in one bed-room and in another bed-room his parents. The alleged motive for committing the offence, according to the prosecution, is that the applicant used to watch horror and obscene movies on computer and his grand mother used to scold him for watching such movies. 4. According to the applicant, as has been stated in the FIR, he woke up at midnight after hearing cry of his brother, and he found that some person was sitting on him. The moment he saw the person sitting on his brother, he pushed him. That person, according to the applicant, also pushed him and in that process his spects fell down. He does not state in the complaint when he wore the spects. Then the said person ran away to whom the applicant followed upto certain distance and returned back home. As against this, according to the prosecution, there is a strong motive against the applicant. Similarly, the explanation coming forward as to what happened in the bed-room during that night, is not at all satisfactory, nor does the brother of the applicant fully support it. The brother does not support the applicant on the point that some stranger was sitting on his person, he cried and as a result of which the applicant woke up etc. The applicant has also not explained as to how his all clothes were stained with blood. It is true that a sniffier dog did not lead the police to the applicant, but, at this stage, it does not lead to the innocence of the applicant. In my view, the circumstances are strong enough to, prima facie, connect the applicant with the alleged offence. Hence, the application is rejected. . While rejecting the application, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)