1 appln59.11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 59/2011 Mohd. Shafi s/o Mohd. Ibrahim..vs..State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO PS Jaripatka, Nagpur and anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. H. Ketkar, Advocate h/f Mr. A. M. Rizvy Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. S. Doifide, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1. Mr. C. R. Thakur, Advocate for non applicant no.2 CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 22, 2011. 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1741/2011 decided on 03.09.2011. 3. Two bodies in mutilated condition were found on the railway track within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Jaripatka. Subsequently, the bodies were identified to be that of Shaikh Kalim and Shaikh Kalloo. Both the deceased were friends. Mohd. Shafi is father of deceased Shaikh Kalim and he is the applicant before this Court. The entire investigation has been completed and six persons have been arrayed as accused including respondent no.2. Out of them, three accused persons have been released on bail. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. The learned Additional 2 appln59.11.odt Sessions Judge while releasing the non applicant no.2 on bail observed as follows: “Perused the charge-sheet. The incident is alleged to have being occurred in the night of 07/05/2011. It also appears from the record that there is no evidence at this stage that the applicant was present on the spot. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The only allegation made against him that one of the co-accused gave him telephonic call. The concerned mobile phone is sized. The police found two cut bodies on railway track. Initially the bodies were unidentified. Having regard to the role attributed to the applicant and evidence collected against him this court is of the view that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to admit the applicant on bail.” 4. It is not demonstrated that the observations made by the learned additional Sessions Judge are de hors or inconsistent with the record. In that light of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in releasing the respondent no.2-accused on bail. That being so, there is no merit in this application. 5. The application is rejected. JUDGE kahale