1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3372/2009. Sachin s/o Suresh Pawar - PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.D.S.Bharuka, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.DR Korde, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned APP for State extensively and perused the report and papers. 2) The accused/petitioner, in custody from 31st May, 2009 for the incident dated 30th May, 2009 for an offence under Sections 302, 307 r/w 34 of IPC as also under section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, prays for bail. 3) The Counsel submits, there is no evidence against the accused. Mere recovery of 2 cartridges or the fire arms, allegedly used in the commission of offence, will not be implicating him. To substantiate the same, the Counsel relies on judgment in the matter of Bharat Fakira Dhiwar Vs. State of Maharashtra – 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 392. The Counsel submits that the laboratory, from where the so-called recovery is made, is a public place and it cannot be fixed to the accused. He says charge sheet is filed, nothing is to be recovered from the accused/petitioner. 4) Learned APP points one of the witness – Aabed Khan in identification parade has identified the accused/petitioner to be one of the person, who, at the material time was seen sitting in his chair for sometime. 5) The contention that the recovery itself is not sufficient or it is a public place is difficult to positively evaluate as the laboratory where the goods were concealed was to the exclusive knowledge and within the exclusive domain of the accused/petitioner. That apart, he 3 allowed change of blood-stained apparels of the main culprit at his place and allowed him to sneak. The manner in which the brutal attack on the RTO officer was made exposes that it was not a single act of the accused, but it was a concert of accused with common intention. At this stage of the matter, even filing of charge sheet by itself will not be a parameter to consider favorable bail. The role attributable to the accused in a matter of such gravity being pivotal, it will not vitiate the matter to its root. Consequently, no bail. Criminal Application rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran3372.09