1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 611 of 2008 Faizur Rehman Ansari .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the applicant. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 4th March 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is charged with an offence of murder of Gullu Coopar punishable u/s.302 of the IPC and an offence of attempt to commit murder of Ami Coopar punishable u/s.307 r/w section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that one Aziz Khan 2 along with wo other persons came to the house of Ami Coopar and Gullu Coopar under the pretext of being a mason, for repair to the tiles of a bathroom. After collecting Rs.100/- for purchase of a cement, he returned along with two persons and went to the bathroom for the repairs. While Ami Coopar was watching a programme on television in the drawing room, Aziz came with a ladi (flooring stone) and hit pmi Coopar on the head. As she shouted Gullu also came; She was also hit on the head. While Gullu died, Ami survived the assault. Aziz Khan and his two accomplices absconded after committing robbery. The applicant was subsequently arrested. In the identification parade, applicant was identified by Ami Coopar as well as domestic maid. 4. Application made by the applicant for bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge by his order dated 13th February 2008. The applicant has thereafter approached this court by this application. 5. There is a strong prima facie evidence about the involvement of the applicant in the crime. Applicant has been identified by Ami Coopar who was the victim herself. He has also been identified by domestic maid who had seen him. The Sessions Judge 3 has held that there is a strong evidence connecting the applicant to the crime. I see no reason to take a different view than the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. The offence is a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and prima facie evidence available against the applicant in my view it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. Application is accordingly rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J)