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.652 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.652 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.652 OF 2009 Shri Raushan Vasant Kadam, .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent. Mr Shahid Azmi, for the applicant. Mr J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the respondent. Mr R.V.Sipahimalani i/b V.T.Sipahimalani & Co for brother and wife of deceased. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 23/04/200 DATE : 23/04/200 DATE : 23/04/2009 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave to amend the affidavit is granted to the learned APP. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. 100 of 2008 of Kanjurmarg Police Station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 120-B of IPC read with section 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act. 3. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The applicant and three others have allegedly committed murder of one Sanjay Vedak. The present applicant had borrowed substantial amount from Sanjay Vedak. The wife of the deceased has stated that her husband was repeatedly asking the applicant to repay the amount borrowed by him. This seems to be a motive for committing the alleged offence. Moreover, according to the prosecution, the deceased and the applicant were seen together just before the incident. Learned APP has filed an affidavit of the Senior Inspector of Police who, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, has narrated the circumstances on which the prosecution desires to rely upon. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit reads thus; "5. I say that during the course of investigation, statement of the witnesses were recorded and following mentioned circumstances are revealed which clearly shows that the circumstances against the present applicant/accused along with other accused including the absconding accused. Circumstances : a) The present applicant/accused has purchased the Bajaj Pulser bearing No.MH-03-AQ 2183 and given to the accused no.2 and the said fact revealed in the statement of Shri Parshuram Vitkar who is the father of the accused no.2. b) The present applicant/accused was seen in the C.C.Camera of the D Mart Stores situated at Mulund (W) of the date of the incident he was seen along with the deceased and when the dead body was found in the car that time there was a bill and other goods which was purchased by the deceased at the D Mart which shows that the present applicant/accused was last seen with the deceased. c) Third circumstance, the pistol which was used in the present offence same was given by the present applicant/accused to the accused nos 2 and 3 which belongs to his brother who is absconding since the date of the offence. d) The report of the used bullet cap found are tally with the pistol and the CA Report is confirmed the fire which took place on the same pistol and the pistol was recovered at the instance of accused no.3 u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and panchanama was drawn accordingly. e) Apart from during the investigation as stated hereinabove, the outstanding amount, i.e. loan of Rs.33 lakhs which was taken by the present applicant/accused not able to pay to the deceased therefore, the conspiracy between the all accused and accordingly, as per the well plan game and accordingly they succeeded to kill the deceased. f) Even the details of the mobile phones of the all accused including the present applicant/accused were disclosing the conversation on the date of the incident. These are the all strong circumstances collected during the investigation and which clearly shows the motive and conspiracy of the present applicant/accused. 4. I have perused the statements of the complainant-Amit Pawar and some other witnesses so alos the documents to which my attention was specifically invited by the learned counsel for the applicant. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, I am satisfied that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are sufficient to show the complicity of the applicant in the crime. In my opinion, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. . While rejecting the application, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)