1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.247 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.758 OF 2007 Mr.Rajesh Balkrishna Pille .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.S.S.Walimbe for the petitioner. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicant was tried by the ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.158 of 2001 alongwith one other for the offence punishable u/s.302 read with 34 of the IPC. By the judgment and order dated 21.5.2002 the applicant was convicted u/s.302 and was sentenced to suffer R.I.for life. Applicant’s appeal has been admitted. This is his application for bail. 2. We have heard at some length learned counsel for the applicant. At the outset, learned counsel has pointed out that the applicant is in jail for eight years. He submitted that the prosecution has not led any cogent evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. He submitted that the entire case is rests on the evidence 2 of PW 6 – Surendra Rajput , who is stated to be the eye witness. Learned counsel submitted that said witness is a chance witness and it is hazardous to rely on his evidence. Learned counsel has pointed out that Surendra claims to have seen the incident through the crack of the door. Therefore his identification of the accused as the assailants is suspect. Learned counsel further pointed out that the blood group of the blood found on the weapons recovered at the instance of the applicant is not the same as that of the blood found on the clothes of the deceased, and therefore, the alleged recovery of the weapons from the applicant looses significance. Learned counsel submitted that therefore this is a fit case where the applicant should be released on bail. 3. We are not impressed by any of these submissions. PW 6 Surendra has stated in his evidence that prior to the date of the incident in question he had gone to see Mr.Deshmukh alongwith his brother as he wanted to hire a room. He had seen the accused. He and his brother had altercation with the accused. One lady had told him the names of the accused. On the day of incident he had again visited Mr.Deshmukh. The accused had altercation with Mr.Deshmukh. They obstructed the plumbing work. Mr.Deshmukh left the place. Thereafter the accused assaulted the deceased. PW 6 Surendra claims to 3 have seen the assault through the crack of the door. He identified the accused in the court. Prima facie we find no reason to discard PW 6 Surendra’s evidence. In view of the prima-facie acceptable evidence of eye witness it is not necessary to discuss the alleged discrepancy in blood group of the blood stains found on the weapons and blood found on the clothes of the deceased. 4. Learned APP has pointed out that the applicant’s history-sheet available at the police station shows that there are 37 cases registered against him. The present case is one of them. In one of the cases, he was sentenced to three years R.I. Some cases are pending and in some cases he has been acquitted. 5. After considering merits of the case we are not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. His antecedents also persuade us to reject his bail application. Accordingly, bail application is rejected. 6. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)