1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 2778 OF 2009 Ganesh Narayan Kindre .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Rajeev Patil i/b Mr Sachin S Punde, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 08/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C. R. No.27 of 2009 of Warje Malwadi Police Station, Pune. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 363, 364 and 201 of IPC. 3. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, according to the prosecution against the applicant are : last seen together, motive, recovery of burnt T 2 skeleton/bones of the deceased at the instance of the applicant, recovery of number plate of the car, statement of chandrakant Wakde from whom the applicant allegedly purchased a can, etc. I have perused the statements of the complainant-Tukaram Sopan Ingale and Nivedita Ingale, the daughter of the deceased. The statements of both these witnesses show that the applicant had borrowed more than Rs. Ten lacs from the deceased and on the date when the deceased and the applicant were last seen together, the deceased had left the house informing his daughter that he was going with the applicant to collect the amount which, it appears, the applicant had promised to pay. I have also perused the statements of Santosh More, Ram Patil and Subhash Choudhari. They all support the prosecution case. From their statements it is clear that the deceased was last seen in the company of the applicant. There is also material on record to show that the burnt bones of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the present applicant near Nepani. Number plate of the car, which was found near Kolhapur without the number plate, was also recovered at the instance of the applicant. The statement of Chandrakant Wakade from Karad is also on record, which shows that the applicant had purchased a can from his shop, which, according to the prosecution, was used for carrying kerosene 3 for burning the dead body of the deceased. In my opinion, all these circumstances and the statements of the witnesses, prima facie, show the complicity of the accused and, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. While passing this order 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. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)