1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5360 OF 2009 Santosh Yeshwant Tawade .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.V. Kotwal i/b Mr. D.B. Jamanik for the applicant. Mr. S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No. I-422 of 2007 registered at Nalasopara Police Station, District Thane, for an alleged offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. 2 2. According to the prosecution, one Krishna @ Kishore Kalyankar was killed by Sanjay Gupta, Santosh Tawade and Vishwa in the night of 15th December 2007. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the said crime. Eye witness Mr. Rajesh Banarsi Rajbhar has stated that he had seen Sanjay Gupta, Santosh Tawade and Vishwas running after Kishor and assaulting him with knives. Post-morten report, inter alia, shows several incised wounds. 3. Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the statement of the eye witness was recorded after about 18 months and therefore eye witness is not trustworthy. The eye witness is a shopkeeper running florist shop where the deceased was killed. He has stated that after the murder, the applicant had come to his shop and threatened him not to disclose anything about the offence otherwise he would also be killed. It is for the 3 Sessions Court to appreciate the evidence of this eye witness in the light of delay and the explanation given by him at the stage of trial. At this stage, suffice it to say that there is prima facie material against the applicant and there is possible explanation for the delay. The eye witness is a natural witness and could have the opportunity of having seen the act of killing as the murder was committed near his shop itself. 4. In the affidavit in reply, the investigating officer has pointed out that there are three other pending cases against the applicant. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been granted bail in respect of two of the cases. The fact however remains that the applicant is a habitual offender and he is facing trial for 3 other offences. Further more, he had once threatened the eye witness and therefore possibility of his threatening the eye witness again and terrorising him cannot be ruled out. 4 5. In the circumstances, the application for bail is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)