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 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1273 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1273 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1273 OF 2009 Shri Purshottam Dashrath Borate ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Vishwanath Kawchale for the Applicant. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : APRIL 4, 2009 DATED : APRIL 4, 2009 DATED : APRIL 4, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(g), 302, 404 read with 34 of the IPC which is registered with Talegaon Dabhade Police Station vide C.R.No.167/2007. 3. Prosecution case is that the deceased victim Jyotikumari Ramanand Choudhari left her house at about 1.30 p.m. on 1st November, 2007 in Indica car driven by the applicant. Later on, her dead body was found. In - 2 - the course of investigation, the applicant and his friend were taken into custody and gold ornaments belonging to the deceased, wrist watch and mobile handset were found to be in possession of the applicant. 4. Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the statement recorded by the police and submitted that there is no material on record to implicate the present applicant in the commission of the offence. He pointed out various discrepancies in the identification parade particularly, the date on which the statement was signed by the Special Executive Magistrate and date on which the witnesses to the said identification parade had signed the memorandum. It is submitted that the witnesses have signed on 14th and the Special Executive Magistrate has signed it on 16th. This itself indicates that the said document was fabricated. It was further submitted that there was discrepancy about the arrest of the accused and the police had no jurisdiction and had arrested him and lastly, his custody was transferred. It was submitted that there was discrepancy regarding the recovery of ornaments at his instance under Section - 3 - 27. It was submitted that this recovery was made earlier and thereafter, panchanama was made. It was further submitted that one of the witnesses had stated that the victim had informed him that the driver was taking her to an isolated place. It was submitted that this version could not be accepted as it was not possible for him to hear the said conversation. It is further submitted that the body which was found had no finger prints of the applicant. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant, therefore, deserves to be released on bail. 5. However, the submission made by the Counsel cannot be accepted. The learned APP has invited my attention to the statements of number of witnesses which clearly show the involvement of the present applicant. The brother-in-law of the deceased also had seen the applicant in the car in which the deceased had travelled. Similarly, one of her friend was also in touch with her and he had heard the victim asking the driver why the car was being taken to the isolated place. There is some discrepancy regarding the date on - 4 - which the memorandum of panchanama was signed, however, that cannot itself be a ground to discard the identification of the applicant, at this stage. Taking into consideration the fact that even ornaments of the deceased were found with the applicant herein, the objections regarding the recovery under Section 27 need not be considered at this stage. The victim was taken to an isolated site and the allegation is that she was raped and murdered. Looking at the gravity of the offence and the material which is on record, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. 6. The trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this court while rejecting the application for bail. All contentions raised by the applicant are kept open and at the hearing of the trial, the trial court shall consider the evidence on merits and in accordance with law. The hearing of the trial is expedited. The Sessions Court is directed to decide the Sessions case within six months. 7. The application is disposed of. - 5 - (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)