1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLICATION NO. 2449 OF 2009 Shri Sambhaji Khashaba Patil .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b K.S.Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP, for the Respondent. Mr Dilip Bodke, for the original complainant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 12/06/2009 PC: 1. Heard Mr Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Mr Saste, learned APP for the respondent and Mr Bodke, learned counsel for the original complainant. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.19 of 2009 of Karad City Police Station, Dist-Satara. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 212,120(b) read with 34 of IPC and section 3 read with 25, 5 of T 2 Arms Act. 3. The applicant and eight others have allegedly hatched a conspiracy to kill one Sanjay Patil. Accordingly, on 15.1.2009, Sanjay Patil was murdered by two accused, namely, Sagar Parmar and Habib Shaikh at 3.30 am. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, he is one of the conspirators. 4. The elections of Karad Agricultural Market Committee were held on 25.10.2008. It was contested by two panels, one headed by sitting MLA from Karad South constituency and other by the deceased-Sanjay Patil. The panel of Sanjay Patil got elected. The present applicant was one of the active members of the MLA’s panel. After the elections, Sanjay Patil was about to become Chairman of the Market Committee. It is on account of these elections, the group of MLA was enraged with the deceased and, therefore, they allegedly hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Sanjay Patil and accordingly he was murdered on 15.1.2009. According to the prosecution, there was a strong motive to kill Sanjay Patil and the applicant played a very vital role in the conspiracy to kill him. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of several witnesses, including the statements of Shivaji Patil, the cashier, and Prakash Patil, the 3 peon working in a branch of the Bank where the applicant was Manager. These witnesses have clearly stated that the other accused used to visit the applicant often and one of the main accused had even opened an account in the said branch of the Bank. The prosecution has further relied upon the statements of three other witnesses, namely, Pramod Patil, Shankar Shewale and Nandkumar Jangam to show that an amount of Rs. Two lacs was paid by the applicant to one Salim Shaikh, one of the prominent members of the conspiracy, and who actually, with the help of Sagar Parmar and Habib Shaikh, committed the murder of Sanjay Patil. 5. Mr Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, after taking me through the statements of several witnesses submitted that even if the case of prosecution is taken as true, the applicant cannot be stated to have played any role in hatching the conspiracy to kill Sanjay Patil. He submitted that the statements of the witnesses would, at the most, show that the other accused used to visit the applicant in the branch of the D.C.C Bank, and Rs. Two lacs were paid by him to Salim Shaikh. But these circumstances, Mr Mundargi submitted, by themselves, would not be sufficient to even prima facie infer that the applicant was also a conspirator or he knew the plot of 4 killing Sanjay Patil. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the statements of several witnesses and more particularly the witnesses, to whom a specific reference is made in the foregoing portion of the oder. From the statements of Prakash Patil, Shivaji Patil and Sambhaji Thorat, prima face, it is clear that the other accused, namely, Salim Shaikh, Sagar Parmar, Habib Shaikh and Baba More used to visit the applicant and that Baba more had opened an account in the branch of the Bank, where the applicant was Manager. Prakash Patil and Shivaji Patil have specifically stated that these accused persons used to visit the applicant and they would talk for some time and then go away in their Santro vehicle. Similarly, I have gone through the statements of Nandkumar Jangam, Pramod Patil and Shankar Shewale. The statements of all the three witnesses are similar. They have stated that in their presence the applicant told to Pramod Patil that a deal of Commander vehicle has been finalised with some Pahune (some relative) and to pay Rs. Two lacs to the Pahune at Malkapur. Then, he handed him over cash of Rs. Two lacs and a mobile phone and told him that one person would call on the mobile and he should pay cash to the said person. It appears that as per the prosecution, the persons, who 5 actually killed Sanjay Patil, were .contract killers and the said amount of two lacs was to be paid to them through Salim Shaikh. Accordingly, a call was received on the mobile and the person, who called, met them and demanded the money given by the applicant to Pramod Patil. Pramod Patil, in the presence of Nandkumar Jangam and Shankar Shewale, handed over the said amount to that unknown person. These witnesses further state that the photographs of five accused in the present case were published in the newspaper and when they identified the person to whom they had handed over the cash of Rs. Two lacs as one of the accused persons in this case. From perusal of the statements of the three witnesses, it is clear that though the applicant while handing over the amount of Rs.two lacs, had told them that it was for some Pahune, in fact it was handed over to one of the main accused, namely, Salim Shaikh, who played vital role in killing Sanjay Patil and was not the applicant’s relative. There are statements of other witnesses also to show that the other accused and the applicant used to meet often before the alleged incident. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the material on record, at this stage, prima facie shows that the applicant is one of the conspirators to eliminate Sanjay Patil and he did play an important role in furtherance of the conspiracy. In the 6 circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The application is rejected. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)