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. 768 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2008 MAYUR CHUNILAL PATEL .. APPLICANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. RESPONDENT Mr. Prashant Patil for applicant Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,JJ. DATE: 20/8/2008 P.C. . This is an application for bail filed through jail. The applicant is original accused 1 in Sessions Case No. 519 of 2001 and Sessions Case No. 201 of 2004 which were tried by the Court of Sessions at Pune. By judgment and order dated 15/10/07 the applicant has been convicted inter alia for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life. Appeal filed by the appellant challenging the said judgment has been admitted by 2 this court. 2. The case of the prosecution in short appears to be that the applicant had taken hotel of the deceased for conducting. There was some dispute about arrears of rent. The murder is said to have been committed because of that dispute. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant along with the other accused hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution the deceased was last seen in the company of the applicant. The deceased was taken by his car to Pune Nasik Road near Kher Ghat and the applicant and the other accused murdered him. His head was severed and thrown in Pawana river and attempt was made to destroy the evidence. The car of the deceased was traced in Ahmedabad. There were blood stains in the car. According to the prosecution bloodstained clothes of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the applicant. 3. We have heard at some length learned counsel appearing for the applicant. He submitted that there is no direct evidence establishing the complicity of the applicant. Learned counsel 3 submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish motive. He submitted that PW 1 Leela, wife of the deceased has admitted in her evidence that all the dues were paid to the deceased and hence there could be no motive to commit his murder. Learned Counsel further submitted that though it is alleged that bloodstained clothes allegedly discovered at the instance of the applicant were sent to the Chemical Analyser for analysis as regards the group of the blood found on those clothes, the Chemical Analyser’s report is not on record. Learned counsel submitted that there is hardly any evidence to connect the applicant with the murder and hence the applicant be released on bail. 4. Learned APP on the other hand strenuously opposed the grant of bail. Our attention is drawn to the order dated 5/5/08 passed by the Division Bench (F.I. Rebello & K. U. Chandiwal, JJ.) in Criminal Appeal No. 1201 of 2007 filed by Nisar Alias Nisir Yasin Shaikh, original accused 2. We find that after considering the evidence on record the Division Bench has rejected the bail application of accused 2 and 6. Learned APP submitted that there is more prima facie evidence 4 against the present applicant than against original accused 2. 5. Learned APP has informed us that original accused 6 Mobin Shaikh, who was released on furlough has not surrendered to jail. He is absconding. 6. Admittedly the applicant was partner of the deceased. PW 1, PW 6, PW 10 and PW 15 had last seen the deceased in the company of the applicant. Bloodstained clothes were recovered at the instance of the applicant. There appears to be enough prima facie evidence against the applicant. Inasmuch as application for bail preferred by original accused 2 is rejected and the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing on the ground of parity the application for bail cannot be granted. Hence application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE