1 appa1036.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1036 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.777 OF 2009 Pritam @ Dada Pandharinath Gaikwad. ....Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents. Ms. Anjali Waghmare, advocate appointed for applicant. Dr. F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- NOVEMBER 23, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for Applicant as well as learned APP. The Applicant/Accused No.1 has been convicted for offence punishable amongst others section 302 of I.P.C.. The trial Court has elaborately examined the evidence to cull out the different circumstances. 2. Suffice it to observe that the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to the exhuming dead body of the deceased from the house of the Applicant is unexceptionable. The same is established from the evidence of P.W.5 and Exh. 33 panchanama recording that fact. The finding recorded by the 2 appa1036.10 Court below in this regard, as aforesaid, is unexceptional. 3. The other circumstances, which has been found by the trial Court is that after the minor was kidnapped, the Applicant in his own handwriting demanded ransom of Rs.15 Lakhs. The said communication was received by P.W.1 Himmatrao Namdeorao Nikam. The fact that the handwriting matches to the specimen handwriting of the Applicant is established from the evidence of handwriting expert-P.W.15. These material circumstances do indicate complicity of the Applicant in the commission of the crime. In the circumstances, this is not a case for grant of bail. Bail Application is rejected. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)