1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 534 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 534 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 534 OF 2008 Shri Prashant Kamlakar Vinde ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. A.H.H.Ponda, Advocate, for the applicant. Smt. M.M.Deshmukh,AGP, for the Respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 11th April, 2008. DATE: 11th April, 2008. DATE: 11th April, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is the second application for bail filed by the applicant Prashant. Previously, he along with another accused No.5 Chandrakant had filed Criminal Application No.3387 of 2007 for bail. That application was rejected on 9.1.2008. According to the prosecution, one deceased Shantaram was abducted by some persons who had come by a Tata Sumo vehicle and dragged him and made 2 him sit in Tata Sumo. That incident occurred on 7.3.2007 and on 14.3.2007, dead body of Shantaram was recovered from Mhaleshwar 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the present applicant was not identified by witness Mansi though in the previous order it is mentioned that he was identified by her. Further he contends that if the report of the identification parade is seen, it is difficult to hold that the present applicant was one of the persons who had abducted. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 4. It is true that in the previous order dated 9.1.2008, it was recorded that both the applicants i.e. th present applicant and Chandrakant were identified by three witnesses, namely, Ashok, Mansi and Mahesh as the persons who had kidnapped Shantaram. The memorandum of identification parade reveals that the present applicant Prashant was identified by Ashok and Mahesh and not by Mansi. Merely because he was not identified by Mansi, the importance of identification by other two witnesses is not lost. After careful perusal of the endorsement made in the last column showing the role of the present 3 applicant, I am satisfied that prima facie the present applicant was one of the persons who had abducted Shantaram. At this stage, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is scope to hold that the present applicant was not seen coming out or boarding Tata Sumo by which Shantaram was abducted and taken away. 5. After going through the record, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant bail. The Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)