1 appa.1375.08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1375 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1267 OF 2008 Narayan Ramu Noukudkar ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Mr.Prakash Naik for Applicant. Ms.S.V.Gajre, A.P.P. for Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- SEPTEMBER 16, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. 2. Considering the material taken into account by the Court below for recording finding of guilt against the Applicant, in our opinion, this is not a case for grant of bail. The argument of the Applicant that the evidence of the sole eye-witness is doubtful, in our prima facie opinion, cannot be countenanced. The fact that the complaint was not lodged immediately, does not militate against the truthful evidence of the said witness. Similarly, the argument of the Applicant that the human blood though noticed on the articles, does not relate to the involvement of the Applicant/accused, has 2 appa.1375.08.sxw been considered by the Court below and rightly negatived. There is ample material on record to indicate the complicity of the Applicant. In the circumstances, the Application for bail is rejected. 3. We are informed that the private paper-book is already filed. If so, matter can be processed by the Office for listing as per its turn under caption `convicts in jail’. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)