(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1249 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1201 OF 2007 Nisar Alias Nisir Yasin Shaikh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra....Respondent Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for the Applicant. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.238 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1230 OF 2007 Mobin Isaq Shaikh ..........Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra....Respondent Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.D. Singh for the Applicant. Ms. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED: 5TH MAY 2008 DATED: 5TH MAY 2008 DATED: 5TH MAY 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Applicant in Criminal Application No.1249 of 2007 is the original accused No.2. The Applicant in Criminal Application No.238 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No.1230 of 2007 is original accused No.6, whose case stands separated as Sessions Case No.201 of 2004. The learned trial Judge by a common judgment dated 15th October, 2007 was pleased to (-2-) convict both the Applicants amongst others for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life. Along with these applicants the accused No.1- Mayur Chunilal Patel has also been convicted. His application is not before us. 2. In so far as accused No.2 is concerned, he was not on bail during the course of the trial. In so far as accused No.6 is concerned he was earlier granted bail because charge sheet was not filed within 90 days. He was, however, thereafter arrested in some other offence and was also absconding and his case was separated being Sessions Case No.201 of 2004. 3. The learned Counsel for both the accused have sought to contend that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence whatsoever against these Applicants. We have considered the finding recorded by the learned Judge. Firstly we find that the learned Judge based on the evidence of P.W.1 Leela, the widow of the deceased as also the D.N.A. test conducted by Dr. J.V. Rao have identified that the sample of blood stains found in the car and the blood samples of the deceased were same. P.W.1 was able to identify the body considering the clothes worn by the deceased. In other words the decapacitated body belonged to (-3-) the deceased Chandrakant Khaire has been established. That death was homicidal also has been established. 4. The evidence against the present applicants includes the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.15. P.W.15 in fact has identified the accused No.2 as the person who was sitting with accused Mayur in the car. The presence of accused No.2 with the accused No.6 the other applicant has also been established through the evidence of P.W.7. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.6 shows that presence of the accused No.2. In so far as accused No.6 is concerned his presence in the hotel was identified by P.W.5 as also the evidence of P.W.7, who states that the accused went off with his motor cycle. P.W.5 as stated earlier has identified the accused No.6. 5. Much was sought to be made that the evidence show that the accused was residing in Hotel Kapil whereas the books were of Hotel Poonam. The learned Sessions Judge based on the evidence has discussed the same in para.29 that the Registers produced for Hotel Poonam were also used by Hotel Kapil. 6. At this stage considering the evidence on record and apart from that the accused No.6 was absconding this is not a fit case to grant bail. Hence applications for bail rejected. (-4-) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)