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.3796 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3796 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3796 OF 2008 Anwar Akabar Shaikh .. Applicant. Vs The State of Maharashtra, Respondent. Mr.Satish Y.Kadam, for the applicant. Mr H.J.Dedhiya, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 05/12/2008 DATE : 05/12/2008 DATE : 05/12/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Dedhiya, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.565 of 2007 of Yerwada Police Station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and six others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 3. Counsel for the applicant, at the outset, invited my attention to few documents annexed to the application and contended that the name of the applicant is Shaikh Akabar Abdul and the accused involved in the present case is one Anwar Akabar Shaikh. The present applicant has no concern with the alleged crime or with Anwar Akabar Shaikh. Learned APP invited my attention to the statement of the mother of the applicant, who has stated that her son is also known as Anwar Akabar Shaikh. Even in the Vakalatnama he has signed as Anwar Akabar Shaikh. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the applicant has no merit. 4. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are : motive, last seen together, extra judicial confession, and recovery of weapon. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the first three circumstances. I have perused the statements of Iqabal Karim Shaikh and Balasaheb Vishwanath Waghmare. Both have clearly stated as to how the present applicant and other accused abducted the deceased in the intervening night of 27th and 28th December, 2007. It appears that at the time when they abducted the deceased there was a quarrel and scuffle between the deceased and the accused. Thereafter, on the next day, the dead body of the deceased was found. One of the accused-Guljar made extra judicial confession to Mohd Mulani, to whom he told as to how all the accused killed the deceased and that at the relevant time the applicant was also with them. There is sufficient material on record, at this stage, to connect the applicant with the alleged offence and hence this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. The application is rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)