[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1936 OF 2008 Ashok Wadhwa ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Shirish Gupte senior counsel with Mr.Rohit Shetty Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar Advocate for original complainant ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No. I-187 of 2007 of Hill Line Police Station, Ulhasnagar. The said case is mainly under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no eye witness has implicated the applicant. There is no recovery at his instance and statements of the co-accused which have been [-2-] recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are exculpatory and hence, they cannot be relied upon. It was further submitted that the dispute was between Prakash Chandwani and Bhishmakarma (deceased) and there was no motive for the applicant to commit murder of Bhishmakarma. 4. The learned APP has pointed out that the statement of witness Anil Keswani has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In that statement, Anil has stated that Prakash and the present applicant and one other person were having discussion on 13.11.2007. This witness heard the applicant telling the short person i.e. co-accused Pappu Yadav that Bhishmakarma is sitting in the hotel and today the work should be done. At that time, Prakash told Pappu that he should not take any tension about money. The incident in question has taken place in the night of 13th and 14th November, 2007. The learned APP has also placed reliance on the statement of witness Dayal. Dayal has stated that co-accused Pappu Yadav told him that he had assaulted deceased on the say of the present applicant. [-3-] 5. The material on record does implicate the present applicant. In addition thereto, I have perused the statements of co-accused which have been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said co-accused are Pappu Yadav and Mahesh Ghondwinde. No doubt, statements are exculpatory, however statement of Mahesh shows that the applicant promised to give him Rs.20 lakhs if he stated that he took the name of the applicant because the police had beaten him. Statement of Pappu also shows that the applicant had shouted at him in the prison and told him to give a statement. The applicant had also promised to pay money to Pappu. From the statements of these two persons, it is seen that the applicant is in habit of threatening and pressurising people. In this view of the matter, it would not be desirable to release the applicant on bail. Looking to the above facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. 6. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]