1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2000 OF 2009 WITH CRI.APPLN.NO.248 OF 2009 IN CRI.APPLN.NO.2000 OF 2009 Hrishikesh Prakash Mehatre .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b P.P.Killedar for the applicant Mr.U.V.Warunjikar for the original complainant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 12th June, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. 381 of 2008 of Dehuroad Police Station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and eight others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B of IPC. 3. The applicant and eight others have allegedly hatched a conspiracy to kill Vaibhav Mehtre and accordingly 4-5 accused 2 including Sunil Pisal, Vikas Kale and Praveen Pradhan committed his murder on 6th December, 2008 at 7.30 pm. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, according to the prosecution, he is the main conspirator who had strong motive to kill Vaibhav Mehtre, though he personally did not participate in actual assault on 6th December, 2007. The prosecution, apart from the other material, has relied upon the motive and mobile call details to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. 4. Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the motive alone is not sufficient to hold the applicant as one of the conspirators. He invited my attention to the statements of Ganesh Mehtre and one Bhausaheb Mehtre to contend that the deceased had quarrel with some other persons also and, therefore, there is every possibility that murder of Vaibhav was the outcome of quarrel with other persons. Insofar as mobile details are concerned, Mr.Mundargi submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to show that mobile phone (No.99225 03760) was belonging to Santosh Mane, one of the conspirators and that the calls were made by the applicant to Santosh Mane on several occasions at the relevant time. He also invited my attention to the statement of Kiran Tambe to contend that extra judicial confession made by the other accused to this witness does not connect the present applicant with the alleged incident. In other words, he submitted that the extra judicial confessions 3 made by other accused, in no way connect the applicant, even as a conspirator, with the murder of Vaibhav Mehtre. My attention was also drawn to the statement of Ajay Raikar to contend that it is not sufficient to hold that the applicant was one of the conspirator as alleged. Mr.Mundargi submitted that recovery of motor cycle at the instance of the applicant would not help the prosecution since it is not the case of the prosecution that it was used for commission of the offence. 5. I have perused the entire record placed before the court very carefully. Insofar as the motive is concerned, undoubtedly, it connects the present applicant with the incident of murder, though, it is true that motive by itself is not sufficient to hold a person guilty. It appears that there was an incident in which the deceased and his associates had assaulted the applicant’s father. The criminal case in respect thereof was pending. It is against this backdrop I examined the mobile details produced on record. The prosecution has produced print-outs of the mobile phones belonging to the present applicant, Santosh Mane, Praveen Pradhan and Sunil Pisal. Out of the 9 accused, 4-5 accused actually committed the offence of murder on 6.12.2008 and out of the of 4-5 accused, three accused, namely, Sunil Pisal, Vikas Kale and Praveen Pradhan came to identified by the eye witnesses as assailants in the test identification parade. It is against this backdrop, perusal of the mobile details of the mobile phones of the present applicant (No.97633 38339) and Santosh 4 Mane show that on several occasions, at the relevant time, they had long conversation. During 6.11.2008 and 6.12.2008, on 89 occasions they had conversation on there mobiles. Similarly, mobile details of the mobile phones belonging to Praveen Pradhan, Sunil Pisal, the assailants and Santosh Mane, show that on several occasions they had conversation amongst themselves and also with the applicant. Mr.Mundargi, however, submitted that there is no material on record to show that mobile (No.99225 03760) was belonging to Santosh Mane. In my opinion, this argument is not open to the applicant and/or cannot be examined/entertained at this stage. During investigation the police found that this mobile was being used by Santosh Mane at the relevant time and Santosh Mane at no stage, during the investigation, denied the said fact. That apart, the applicant has not placed on record any explanation as to why did he make calls from or received calls on his mobile phone from the mobile phones of the other accused person at the relevant time. Though the statement of all accused persons under section 27, which clearly implicate the applicant as the main conspirator, cannot be looked into, the conversation between the applicant and the other accused, coupled with the motive and the other material on record, is prima facie, sufficient, at this stage, to connect the present applicant with the alleged incident. It is sufficient to prime facie hold that the applicant was one of the conspirator in committing the alleged 5 offence. In my opinion, the other material on record supports the prosecution case against the applicant. In the circumstances I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The application is rejected. However, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the trial expeditiously. 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.)