1 BA-1719-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1719 OF 2011 Sudeshs Saras Pandey alias Swadesh Pandey ... Applicant/accused vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Karan D.Bhosale, i/b. Ms. Devika Nigade,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde,APP for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 28th November, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.54/2011 registered at Navghar Police Station, Thane under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that a few days before the incident of this case, deceased Mahesh Kahar and another accused Fulchand Tiwari had some quarrel because deceased Mahesh had allegedly removed a Locket from the neck 2 BA-1719-11.sxw of Fulchand Tiwari when he was in drunken condition. On 19.3.2011, at about 9 a.m., Mahesh Kahar and Fulchand were present at the hotel of one Vikram Fulchand Gupta. At that place, Fulchand Tiwari demanded his locket back and he also abused Mahesh. At about 10 p.m. the present applicant Sudesh also came there and from there all the three went away. At about 11 p.m., all the three were present at the cement katta near Jasal Park tree where Mahesh usually used to sleep. His wife also came there. At that time, Mahesh, the applicant Sudesh and another accused Fulchand Tiwari were in drunken condition. At that time, they had exchanged hot words due to which Mahesh gave blow on the face of the applicant Sudesh and caused injury on his lips. At that time, Sudesh and Fulchand left the place in anger, while Mahesh slept there only while continuing to abuse both the accused. Next morning, the dead body of Mahesh was found at the place where he used to sleep. As per the statement of two witnesses i.e. Kisan Gupta and Vikram Gupta, on 20.3.2011 at about 6 a.m. another accused Fulchand Tiwari had come to them and he was in a frightened condition. On enquiry, he told them that during the night firstly Mahesh had beaten the applicant Sudesh and early in the morning said Fulchand Tiwari and the applicant had been to the spot again and had hit a big stone on the head of Mahesh. Post-mortem report of Mahesh reveals multiple wounds on the head and fractures of the skull bone and death had occurred because of the said injuries on the head. From the nature of injuries, it 3 BA-1719-11.sxw can be inferred that they might have been caused by hitting some stone on his head. The medical report of the present applicant shows that there was abrasion on his lower lip. The applicant was arrested on the same day. According to the prosecution, his clothes wee seized. His pant had blood stains and as per the C.A. Report, the blood on the pant of the accused was of AB Group which is also the blood group of the deceased. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that extra judicial confession of Fulchand Tiwari is not admissible in evidence. There is no direct evidence and, according to him, blood group of the deceased could not be determined. Extra-judicial confession made by another accused Fulchand implicates himself as well as the present applicant. The background of the incident is revealed from the statements of Chandra wife of the deceased as well as other withesses. Even though the blood sample of the deceased could not be determined, the C.A. Report reveals that the blood on the clothes of the deceased as well on his bedsheet etc. was of AB Group which indicates that the blood of deceased was of AB group. On the pant seized from the person of the accused/applicant also blood stains were found. It was human blood of AB group. As per the C.A. Report, blood of the applicant is of `O’ group. The presence of the blood of the deceased on the clothes of the applicant provides connection of 4 BA-1719-11.sxw the crime with the applicant. It is true that there is no direct evidence, but there is circumstantial evidence to prima facie establish tha the present applicant was involved in commission of the murder of the deceased Mahesh. If the bail is granted, there is every possibility that the applicant may abscond or may tamper with the prosecution evidence. 5. Therefore, the application stands rejected. 6. The applicant is in jail for last about 8 months. The case is already committed to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the trial Court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the same as early as possible, and preferably within next six months. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) 5 BA-1719-11.sxw 6 BA-1719-11.sxw 7 BA-1719-11.sxw 8 BA-1719-11.sxw 9 BA-1719-11.sxw 10 BA-1719-11.sxw 11 BA-1719-11.sxw 12 BA-1719-11.sxw (J.H.BHATIA,J.)