4crn2089-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2089 OF 2010 Wageshwar Prallhad Mate. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Jayant Bardeskar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 29TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant for his release on bail in C.R. No.361 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120B, 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Accordingly there are in all seven accused persons in the present case. Out of them one woman accused by name Leena was arrested and bailed out by the Sessions Court. 4crn2089-10 2 According to the case and as per the narrations in the FIR, deadly assault was made on the complainant/first informant an officer, the General Manager of one company on the night 19th December, 2009 when she came out after the office work and was entering her car along with other office associates in the parking area in the compound of the company. Two unknown assailants armed with deadly weapons like choppers assaulted her. The assault was towards the complainant and it was of such a serious nature that almost her right hand palm was almost dismembered and severely bleeding because of the assault. Other two office colleagues of the lady officer ran away from the spot out of fear. 3. According to the case of prosecution, said attack on the lady officer was on account of her illicit relations with her senior boss in the said company and such assault was prapogated by the wife of the said senior officer. Apparently there are two statements one by Mr.Mahadeo Arjun Jadhav 4crn2089-10 3 and another of Mr.Adesh Dashrath Jambhale. Mahadeo Arjun Jadhav is also an employee in the said company and on the relevant night he was present near the scene and according to him when the lady officer left for going home and entered the lift he made a telephone call to the wife of the senior official as per her instructions and informed as to the lady officer leaving the office premises. According to the said witness he was informed to contact present applicant over telephone. The present applicant is admittedly the driver of the wife of the senior official. As per the instructions, the said witness telephoned the present applicant and informed him to call his Madam i.e. wife of the senior official. During the arguments, learned APP for the State brought to the notice of this Court the log sheet of various calls made or received by mobile number used by applicant. On perusal of such sheets prima facie it is seen that during the span of about five minutes, there were conversations concerning the telephone number which was then being allegedly used by the present applicant. 4crn2089-10 4 The call of 10:07 p.m. show that the present applicant had a talk with the wife of the senior official, second call of 10:09 show that witness Mahadeo Jadhav had made a telephone call to the present applicant. The next call is of 10:10 p.m. wherein the present applicant had made a call to one of the co-accused who is allegedly assailant. Another call is of 10:11 p.m. wherein wife of the senior official had made a telephone call to the present applicant. On these entries in the call log, the learned Senior Counsel Shri Mundargi vehemently argued that in the first place the telephone number which is allegedly in use by the applicant was in the name of co-accused. On this, it is submitted by the learned APP that the co-accused has taken two Sim cards in his name and allegedly according to the investigation it was revealed that the mobile number for which the log sheets were obtained was in use and in possession of the present applicant. It is also argued on behalf of the applicant that mere conversation may not prove as to what was text of conversation. Of course, this is only 4crn2089-10 5 the circumstance as to at the very proximity of the commission of offence of assault, such conversations occurred and that also the present applicant having conversation with the witness, with the wife of the senior official and with one of the co-accused, one of the two assailants. Of course, how this evidence is to be used during the trial is the question of appreciation of evidence. However at least at this stage there is something to show that there was involvement of the present applicant, mainly considering the contents of another statement of one Aadesh Jambhale who is real brother of the co-accused and the same accused with whom the present applicant had a conversation as mentioned in the above call log. In the said statement of said Adesh Jambhale it transpired that his brother had received an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the present applicant. Specific name of the present applicant is mentioned in the statement. Out of the said amount of Rs.1 lakh except an amount of Rs.10,000/- kept with the witness, other amount was distributed amongst 4crn2089-10 6 other associates by his brother. Again on this statement, it is vehemently argued on behalf of the applicant that this nowhere can lead the case of the prosecution any further so as to implicate the applicant in the offence. 4. Considering the overall view of the matter and considering that it is a matter in which the present applicant is charged for the offence of 307 read with 120 B and 109 of IPC, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to release the present applicant on bail during pendency of the trial. This is more so when the present applicant is also an employee with the same company where the victim was General Manager and she was assaulted infact for doing away with her. All the same, there is nothing to entertain the present application for release on bail. Hence order : :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.2089 of 2010 for regular bail stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)