1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2010 (Sachin Vs. State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. S.D.Kaldate, AGP for the respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:29-3-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicant. In Crime No. 310/2009, registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, the accused was arrested on 31st May, 2009. It was immediately after the incident dt.30th May, 2009, where an R.T.O. Accounts Officer was fired to death, allegedly by one Sachin Tayade. The accused/applicant Sachin Pawar was accompanying him, identified by Abedkhan, Peon of the R.T.O., he had, for a short while, interaction with said Abedkhan, which primarily cemented the 2 identification. Apart from that, the recovery panchnama, at the instance of the accused, indicate to his knowledge, the fire arm, the cartridge allegedly used in the commission of the offense, are recovered. The other recovery of blood stained apparels from his house, is tried to be shirked by the accused/applicant, attributing malice to the main accused Sachin Tayade. However, the fact remains, there is recovery immediately after the arrest. It was canvassed on the last date that the recovery itself could not be attributed since it was from a public place, this was negatived in the findings. The order of rejection of earlier application was subsequent to the chargesheet as chargesheet is filed on 17th August, 2009. 2. Learned A.P.P. submits that there is nothing to demonstrate change of circumstances. 3. The contention that, at the most, it would be a case under 3 Section 201 of IPC, at this stage, is difficult to digest. The accused primarily appears to have share with the culprit in eliminating the deceased. The motto could be to take revenge of past events and the deceased faced the brunt, lost his life. 4. In the circumstances, no eventuality to enlarge the accused on bail. No change. The observations made here-in-above are prima facie in nature. The Judge dealing with the Sessions trial will independently assess the evidence and decide the matter. Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/550-10crapl