ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 384 of Indian Penal Code, registered in respondent/Police Station Crime No.117/2017 and after completing the investigation charge sheet came to be filed for the alleged offences punishable under Section 120B, 341, 363, 302, 396, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that accused by name Mujafar S/o Mohammed Shaikh, resident of Kakatives Belagavi, in APMC. P.S. Crime No.117/2017 and complainant took one Navid Kazi resident of Mahantesh Nagar to his custody and after enquiry it is revealed that said Navid Kazi and Rasid Malbari of Mumbai and his associates viz., Niyamat, Bilal, Ali, Sarfaraj and another in all 7 persons in the farm house of Nazir Nadaf at Saundatti, planned to kidnap Suresh Redekar of Belagavi and if they kidnap, they can collect the handsome money and they were watching near the service road of Tamrind Market at Ujwal Nagar regarding the movements of the Suresh Redekar from his shop. They were watching the movements by sitting in a Innova Car bearing No.KA-22/P3565. When they were so watching, Rasid has also asked to call Sarfaraj and as such he called Sarfaraj that the present petitioner herein, Sarfraraj came there on an Activa Motorcycle. When they were so watching the Suresh Redekar’s red car came on the service road from his shop and as such Navid Kazi, Rasid and others have followed the said car and when the red car came from the service road towards Kanakadas Circle, thereafter near Cancer Hospital and went towards Kolhapur through NH-4 highway. When the said car was passing after Nisarga Dhaba, Rasid Malbari and others overtook the said car and dashed to the front bumper of the said car, through their Innova and stopped the same. After the inmates of the car climbed down came near the car by speaking something, at that time Rasid Malbari and Bilal have got down from their car and aimed their pistols and dragged him inside their car. Rasid Malbari told to Navid Kazi to take the said car of Redekar and follow the Innova. After the inmates of the car climbed down came near the car by speaking something, at that time Rasid Malbari and Bilal have got down from their car and aimed their pistols and dragged him inside their car. Rasid Malbari told to Navid Kazi to take the said car of Redekar and follow the Innova. They took the said persons in their car went to Honaga Industrial cross took a Uturn and came towards Hirebagewadi, thereafter again took Uturn through the underpass and again came on NH-4 highway and proceed further came near Rajastan Dhaba, near Mukti Math thereafter they crossed the Gugaryanatti cross and stopped the vehicle. Rasid Malbari has told to Navid Kazi to stop the car of Redekar by the side of the road asked him to sit in Innova Car. Accordingly Navid Kazi sat inside Innova Car and after getting inside the car Navid Kazi told to Rasid Malbari, that the person whom they have kidnapped is not Suresh Redekar, but he is his son Rohan Redekar. Therefore, Rasid Malbari became little disturbed and asked to drive the car again took Uturn and came on the highway near Udyambag, at that time Bilal and Ali have tied the legs put the cloth in the mouth of Rohan Redekar, through Jamboti road they pass Kankumbi village. At that time the left side back wheel suffered puncture it was 12.00 p.m. during night. Therefore Navid Kazi called Sarfarz i.e. present petitioner herein asked him to bring the stepney of Innova car and Sarfaraj/petitioner came there at 02.00 p.m. he changed the wheel and installed the stepney and when the Sarfaraj asked, where is Suresh, then Rasid said Suresh was not found and he brought his son Rohan; thereafter Sarafarj went back to Belagavi. On the basis of the alleged allegations made in the complaint, a case came to be registered. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.7 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel made the submission, that looking to the averments made in complaint, in which vehicle the present petitioner alleged to came to the said place, the vehicle was not at all in the name of the petitioner/accused No.7 and learned counsel gave the date to show that the said vehicle was still in the show room. 4. Learned counsel made the submission, that looking to the averments made in complaint, in which vehicle the present petitioner alleged to came to the said place, the vehicle was not at all in the name of the petitioner/accused No.7 and learned counsel gave the date to show that the said vehicle was still in the show room. So far as this aspect is concerned, false allegations are made to falsely implicate petitioner/accused No.7. Learned counsel also made submission, even otherwise, looking to the allegations made in the complaint, they go to show that it is the other accused persons, who have actually participated in committing the murder of the son of Suresh Redekar and the present petitioner never participated in such act. Learned counsel submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP made submission, that looking to the prosecution material collected, they go to show that, even the present petitioner participated in the conspiracy to eliminate Suresh Redekar. But unfortunately the person, who was caught in the red car was not Suresh Radekar, but it is his son Mr. Rohan Radekar. Learned HCGP made submission that, prosecution materials go to show the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was also offered to the present petitioner, which they wanted to get from Suresh Redekar to the tune of Rs.5,00,00,000/-. Hence, he submitted that the material clearly go to show prima facie, even the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also other materials produced along with the petition. Looking to the materials placed on record they go to show that, when the wheel of Innova Car was punctured, immediately the present petitioner was called to the said place, asking him to bring the Stepney, he brought the Stepney and even it is mentioned in the prosecution material, at that time he enquired with the other persons, where is Suresh Redekar and at that time he was told Suresh Redekar was not found, but his son Rohan Redekar is inside the car. There is also the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC. There is also the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC. In view of the prosecution material collected, though there may not be actual participation in committing the murder, the materials go to show the conspiracy hatched to eliminate Suresh Redekar, even there is role played by the present petitioner. Hence, in view of these prima facie material, I am of the opinion that it is not fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner, accordingly the petition is hereby rejected.