[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2673 OF 2008 Sikandar Ahmad Ali Ahmad Khan ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar Advocate for Applicant Ms.A.T.Jhaveri APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 20, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 20, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.I-6 of 2008 of Shahapur Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 302 of IPC. 3. There is no eye witness to the incident. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances against the applicant are last seen, extra judicial confession, recovery of blood stained iron jack and recovery of blood stained [-2-] shirt at the instance of the accused. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that recovery of jack cannot strictly speaking be said to be recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the panchnama. On perusal of the panchnama, it is noticed that the applicant has stated that he had hidden the iron jack in some shrubs infront of Maharashtra Motor Garage. The panchnama further states that after he stopped near Maharashtra Motor Garage, applicant led police and panchas to a distance of 50 to 60 feet on eastern side of Maharashtra Motor Garage and he took out the iron jack from some shrubs. The said iron jack was blood stained. No doubt, the spot was about 50 to 60 feet away from Maharashtra Motor Garage, but looking to the fact that the applicant led the police and panchas to the said spot near Maharashtra Motor Garage and he took out the blood stained iron jack from the shrubs near the garage, in my opinion, it can certainly be said to be a recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. [-3-] 5. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that witness Atiullakhan alias Munna has stated about the extra judicial confession, however, when his statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., this witness has only stated about the circumstance of last seen and he does not mention about the extra judicial confession. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that this is not the only material against the applicant. There is also other material against the applicant which implicates him. Looking to the above facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application is rejected. In case the trial does not start by 30.11.2008, liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer a fresh application for bail. 6. The observations made in this order, shall not influence learned Sessions Judge while deciding the trial. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]