1 Cri-A-3043-09-&-3922-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3043-2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3922 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3043 OF 2009 Shri Amit Akaram Kadam ... Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3922 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant vs. Shri Sanjay Hambirrao Kadam ... Respondent (Orig. accused No.1) Mr. Nilesh Wable i/b. Umesh R.Mankapure, Advocates, for the applicant. Mrs. G.P.Mulekar, APP, for the respondent - State. (for the applicant in Appln.No.3922/2009). Shri Shekhar Ingawale, Advocate, for respondent no.2. (for the respondent No.1 in Appln NO.3922/09). CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 4th March, 2011. P.C. 1. One application is filed by the original complainant and another application is filed by the State for cancellation of bail granted to accused Sanjay Kadam in Crime No.55/2009 under Sections 302, 120B, 404,109 r/w Sec. 34 of 2 Cri-A-3043-09-&-3922-09.sxw IPC registered at Sangli City Police Station. 2. Prosecution case, in brief is that deceased Uday Akaram Kadam who was brother of the complainant had some illicit relations with the wife of accused Sanjay Kadam and therefore accused No.1 Sanjay Kadam gave a contract to accused No.2 to commit murder of Uday Kadam. Accused No.2 allegedly gave the said contract to accused No.3 and finally accused No.3 committed murder of Uday Kadam on 21.3.2009. Prosecution relies on recovery of blood stained weapon Kudal, which is an agricultural implement. Second circumstance against him is that on the same day, he was seen along with two other persons near the field of Vilas Patil where the witness Mallava Pujari and some other persons were working. As usual, there is no direct evidence about the conspiracy. Witness Mallava was not an eye-witness of the incident. She claims to have seen deceased Uday Kadam at about 10.30 a.m. After some time, she claims to have seen three persons and accused Sanjay was one of them. Sanjay was shown to her at the police station. No T.I. parade was held and there is no evidence that she had identified remaining two persons. Out of three, one of them was allegedly assailant. If accused Sanjay Kadam had given contract to another accused to commit murder, the seizure of blood stained weapon with him is something surprising. The trial Court considered all the aspects while granting bail. I do not 3 Cri-A-3043-09-&-3922-09.sxw find anything to hold that the said order is per-se wrong or perverse. Therefore, there cannot be any justification for reappreciation of the evidence by this Court. 3. In the result, both the applications stand rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)