1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1319 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 653 OF 2007 RAIS AHMED HANIF AHMED ANSARI .. APPLICANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS... RESPONDENTS Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, Advocate appointed for applicant Mrs. M. M. Deshmukhm, APP CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,JJ. DATED: 29/8/2008 P.C. . As directed by this court on 7/1/08 Advocate Ms. B. P. Jakhade was appointed by the office to appear for the applicant. This matter was called on for hearing on 28/8/08. Ms. Jakhade was not present, therefore, we directed that it be placed on our board today i.e 29/8/08. Today again Ms. Jakhade is not present. Hence in her place we have appointed Advocate Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan to 2 assist us. Needless to say that appointment of Advocate Ms. Jakhade has come to an end. Ms. Kuttikrishnan has ably assisted us. 2. The applicant was tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge inter alia for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short). By order dated 6/1/07 he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life. His appeal has been admitted. This application is for bail. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Kuttikrishnan submitted that there is no eye-witness. There is discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. She submitted that it is not clear whether the applicant pulled the deceased out of the powerloom and took him away or accused Sunil pulled him out. Learned advocate urged that in view of these discrepancies the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon. She submitted that the evidence of discovery of a knife and clothes at the instance of the applicant does not inspire confidence. She further submitted that the other accused are absconding and, therefore, they could not be tried along with the present applicant and that has 3 caused prejudice to him. The role played by the other accused has not been examined in its proper perspective. Learned advocate submitted that the prosecution has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question and hence the applicant be released on bail. Learned APP strenuously opposed the bail application. 4. In our opinion evidence of prosecution witnesses prima facie establishes that the applicant along with others took the deceased out of the powerloom from back door and then bolted the door from outside. Thereafter the body of the deceased was found in a jungle. The alleged variance in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses pointed out by learned advocate, in our opinion, is not a material variance. The fact remains that the deceased was taken away as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by the applicant and others. The circumstance of last seen together is, therefore, in our prima facie opinion, established. The prosecution has also led evidence to prove the discovery of bloodstained knife and bloodstained clothes worn by the applicant at the time of incident at the instance 4 of the applicant. Blood found on the knife and the blood found on the clothes as per the Chemical Analyser’s report tallies with the blood group of the deceased. This is a clinching circumstance against the applicant. Prima facie, in our opinion, chain of circumstances is complete and it points unerringly to the guilt of the accused. 5. We are not impressed by the submission that because the other accused were not tried along with the applicant any prejudice is caused to him. Role of the applicant has been considered by learned Judge on the basis of available evidence. As and when other accused are available they will be put up for trial. In our opinion, the applicant cannot be granted bail. Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE