1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2009 Ganesh Nivrutti Marne ..... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. ---- Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. --- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17th February, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant has been arrested in connection with the offence punishable under sections 302 and other related provisions of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(25) of the Arms Act as also under the provisions of the MCOC Act. The learned Special Judge, in his order rejecting bail to the applicant, has given a finding that there is no material on record to indicate that the provisions of MCOC Act can be invoked against the present applicant. Trial Court, however, rejected bail to the applicant on the ground that there was enough 2 material to connect the present applicant with the commission of the said offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submitted that though the name of the applicant has been mentioned in the statement of 3 to 4 eye witnesses and the same act is attributed to the present applicant, none of these witnesses has identified the applicant in the test identification parade. It is submitted that the magazine which was found at the spot has been recovered at the instance of other accused and that the eight other accused have been released on bail. It is submitted that the Applicant is languishing in jail for quite some time. It is submitted that the complaint has been lodged with the police about threats being given to the prosecution witnesses after the witnesses have failed to identify the present applicant. It is therefore submitted that the applicant should be released on bail. 4. The submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant cannot be accepted. The facts of the case are that it is alleged that the applicant and one other person alongwith group of persons had committed murder of one person. It is alleged that the applicant and others smashed the windows of the car in which the deceased was travelling and, thereafter, other accused used his revolver and fired shots at the deceased. The sequence of events, as narrated by the witnesses, clearly reveal that there was a plan to eliminate the deceased and all of them have acted in collusion. Therefore, even if the applicant has not used the weapon with which 3 the murder was committed, he had shared the intention of the main assailant. Merely because the applicant has not been identified in the test identification parade, that, at this stage, cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of the eye witnesses. Application for bail is therefore rejected. Trial, however, is expedited. 5. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)