Bombay High Court
Mahesh Baburao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 BOM 39
Author: A.S. Gadkari
Bench: A.S. Gadkari
Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 329 OF 2020
Mahesh Baburao Patil ... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents.
Mr. K. S. Dewal a/w Mr. Roshan Tanna for the Applicant.
Smt. Rutuja Ambekar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. M. S. Mohite, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Sachin Thorat a/w Mr. Satyam H.
Nimbalkar for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 6TH JANUARY 2021.
P.C. :
This is a successive application for bail.
The earlier application preferred by the applicant bearing Bail Application No.896 of 2018 was dismissed by this Court by a speaking Order dated 1st August 2018.
Being aggrieved by the Order dated 1 st August 2018, applicant had preferred Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 7565 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Order dated 19th September 2018, dismissed the said S.L.P. and had granted liberty to the applicant, to move the High Court after period of four months to renew his bail application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that, on filing 1/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt of such an application for bail, the High Court shall examine and decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law.
2. In view of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant had preferred an application for bail bearing Bail Application No. 290 of 2019. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, when this Court had expressed its disinclination to grant relief to the applicant, he sought leave of this Court to withdraw the said application unconditionally and the said application was dismissed as withdrawn by an Order dated 27 th February 2019.
3. The applicant thereafter has preferred the present application for bail. He had also filed an Interim Application No.1 of 2020 for interim reliefs. The said application came up for hearing before this Court on 26 th June 2020 (Through Video-Conference). The learned counsel appearing for the applicant on instructions did not press prayer Clauses (B) to (E) and had restricted his prayer to prayer Clause (A) of the said application. The prayer Clause (A) was for expediting the hearing of the present bail application. This Court by its Order dated 26th June 2020, while allowing the said application had directed that, the present application be placed for hearing immediately after resumption of smooth functioning of Court.
4. The applicant being aggrieved by the said Order dated 26 th June 2/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt 2020 preferred Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 4085 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the said S.L.P. by its Order dated 10th September 2020.
5. In this background and in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 19 th September 2018, I have heard Mr. Dewal, learned counsel for the applicant at length. I have also heard Mr. Mohite, learned senior counsel for the intervenor Mr. Kunal Patil and the learned A.P.P. Perused entire record annexed to the application.
6. The applicant is seeking bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.R. No.I-707 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017 registered with Manpada Police Station, Dombivali, District-Thane under Sections 120-B, 302 and 115 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and under Sections 3, 25 of Indian Arms Act.
The prosecution case in nutshell is that, the intervenor is an eye witness in C.R. No.97 of 2007, under Sections 148, 149, 307, 302 of IPC and under Sections 3, 25(1)(a) 27 of Arms Act which after investigation has been culminated in Sessions Case No.150 of 2007. In the said crime, the cousin brother of intervenor namely Mr. Vijay Wandar Patil, who was a member of Gram Panchayat Golavali village, was brutally murdered inside the Gram Panchayat Office by applicant (A-7), co-accused Vijay @ Valya Bakade (A-9) and other co-accused persons by firing from a revolver and with sword/ 3/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt choppers. With a view to eliminate Kunal Patil (Intervenor), the applicant along with co-accused Vijay @ Valya Bakade (A-9) gave contract of Rs.50 lakhs to co-accused Vijay Menbansi in the office of the applicant. The applicant from time to time gave Rs.10 lakhs to the said co-accused Vijay Menbansi. Co-accused Vijay Menbansi alongwith other accused persons at least on three occasions kept watch on the movements of Kunal Patil, however was unsuccessful in committing his murder for want of proper opportunity.
7. Mr. Dewal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that, though the F.I.R. was registered under Sections 120-B, 302 and 115 of IPC and under Sections 3, 25 of Indian Arms Act, while submitting charge- sheet, the police dropped Section 302 and crime under Section 120-B and 115 of IPC has only been retained against the applicant and other accused persons. He submitted that, Section 115 of IPC provides for seven years of imprisonment. That the applicant has undergone about three years of imprisonment till today. By referring to the statement of five eye witnesses, he submitted that, the role attributed to the applicant in the present crime is of conspirator only. He further submitted that, the recording of evidence of Mr. Kunal Patil (Intervenor) in Sessions Case No.150 of 2007 arising out of C.R. No.I-97 of 2007 has already been completed on 18th January 2017 by the Trial Court and therefore now there is no possibility of tampering with his 4/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt evidence. He submitted that, the lodgment of the present crime is at the instance of Mr.Kunal Patil (Intervenor) and is counterblast to the crime registered by the applicant against Mr. Kunal Patil and 10 other persons bearing C.R. No.I-622 of 2015 under Section 120-B, 302 read with Section 115 of IPC and under the provisions of Arms Act, for conspiring to commit murder of applicant. He further submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the co-accused Sujit Nalawade (A-8) by its Order dated 26th October 2020 and in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein, principle of parity is applicable to the applicant. That the investigation of the present crime is already completed and therefore the applicant may be released on bail.
8. Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel for the Intervenor vehemently opposed the application and submitted that, there is no change in circumstances in the fact situation of the present case after 1 st August 2018 i.e. after rejection of earlier bail application of the applicant by this Court. He submitted that, the said Order dated 1st August 2018 has not been disturbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 19 th September 2018 and even thereafter there is no change in circumstance in the present case. He submitted that, even at the time of rejection of earlier bail application, the evidence of Mr. Kunal Patil (Intervenor) was already recorded and therefore it 5/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt is not a new ground for consideration for releasing the applicant on bail. He submitted that, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in penultimate paragraph in its Order dated 26th October 2020 in S.L.P. No. 3112 of 2020, in the case of Sujit Nalawade, clearly parity is not applicable to the applicant. He submitted that, the earlier Order dated 1 st August 2018 is a reasoned Order and all the arguments advanced by the applicant today have already been considered by this Court on earlier occasion. He submitted that, in view of the threat perception to the life of Intervenor Kunal Patil, he has been provided police protection. That, the trial of Sessions Case No.150 of 2007 is still pending for final adjudication and the threat to the life of intervenor and other witnesses still subsists. He therefore prayed that, the present application may be dismissed.
9. Smt. Ambekar, learned A.P.P. adopted arguments of Mr. Mohite, learned counsel for the intervenor and further submitted that, there is no change in circumstance after rejection of the earlier application for bail of the applicant. She submitted that, the antecedents which are mentioned on internal page Nos. 8 to 11 of the Order dated 1 st August 2018 have been properly taken into consideration by this Court. She on instructions submitted that, the threat to the life of Mr. Kunal Patil (Intervenor) still subsists and therefore unless and until the trial in Sessions Case No.150 of 2007 pending 6/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan is taken to its logical end the application for bail of the applicant need not be considered and the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. She therefore prayed that, the present application may be dismissed.
10. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that, at the time of filing of final report in the present crime, Section 302 of IPC has been deleted is concerned, in my view it makes no difference whether Section 302 of IPC is retained or deleted at the time of filing of the final report/charge-sheet. As noted earlier, it is precisely the prosecution case that, the applicant along with other co-accused had hatched conspiracy to commit murder of Mr. Kunal Patil and abated co-accused Vijay Menbansi for it, however it was unsuccessful and therefore Section 115 of IPC has been applied to the present crime.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 26 th October 2020 while granting bail to co-accused Sujit Nalawade (A-8) in its penultimate paragraph has clearly observed that, the applicant and co-accused No.9 i.e. Vijay @ Valya Bakade (A-9) are the persons who are alleged to have hired contract killers, accused Nos.1 to 6, and their role is completely different from the role of an alleged intermediary i.e. the said petitioner therein (A-8) is accused of. The principle of parity is therefore also not at all applicable to the 7/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt applicant with co-accused Sunil Nalawade.
Even otherwise the role played by the applicant and the said accused namely Sujit Nalawade in the present crime, is totally different. The applicant is the prime conspirator along with co-accused Vijay @ Valya Bakade (A-9). Applicant had given contract for elimination of Mr. Kunal Patil and had also paid Rs.10 lakhs to the said co-accused Vijay Menbansi as advance payment for the same. The entire motive in the present crime revolves around the applicant.
11. As noted at the inception, this is a successive application for bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 2292, while considering the issue of filing successive applications for bail, in para No.7 has held as under:-
"7. ..... Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overrulling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence........."
12. A minute perusal of entire record would indicate that, there is no change at all, least to say any substantial change from the date of earlier 8/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt Order i.e. 1st August 2018 passed by this Court and Order dated 19 th September 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore the applicant can not be granted bail on the ground on parity.
13. As per the prosecution and the submissions of the Intervenor Mr.Kunal Patil, the applicant is a history sheeter and is having following criminal antecedents at his discredit:-
Sr. C.R. No. Police Station Sections Court Case No. No.
1. 28/1997 Manpada 302, 307, 34 of I.P.C. 243/1997 Sub judiced
2. 113/2002 Manpada 147, 148, 149, 452, 444/2002 363, 365, 387, 323, Sub judiced 504 of I.P.C.
3. I-97/2007 Manpada 147, 148, 149, 302, S.C. No. 307 of I.P.C. r/w 3, 150/2007 25(1)(A) 27 Arms Sub judiced Act and 37(1) 135 of Mumbai Police Act.
4. 188/2011 Manpada 147, 148, 326, 504 453/2011 I.P.C. Sub judiced
5. 704/2015 Manpada 143, 147, 149, 353, 450/2016 332, 333, 504, 506 Sub judiced of I.P.C. r/w Criminal Amendment Act No/ VII r/w 33(3) 135 of Mumbai Police Act.
6. 46/2017 Manpada 506(2), 34 of I.P.C. Police Investigation
7. 342/1999 Dombivali 324, 504, 34 of I.P.C. 313/1999 9/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt
8. 291/2000 Dombivali 143, 147, 148, 149, 483/2001 323, 326, 307 of Sub judiced I.P.C. and 37(1) 135 of Mumbai Police Act.
9. 76/2001 Dombivali 25(1)k of Arms Act 4/2003 Sub judiced
10. 26/2003 Dombivali 365, 323, 504, 506, 160/2003 34 of I.P.C.
11. 74/2003 Dombivali 25(1)(B) Arms Act and 37(1)135 of Mumbai Police Act.
12. 126/2012 Tilaknagar 324, 427, 34 of I.P.C. 742/2012
13. 66/2017 Tilaknagar 143, 144, 146, 148, 35/2017 149, 341, 504, 506, 506(2) of I.P.C. and 37(1)(3) 135 of Mumbai Police Act.
14. 348/2009 Mhatma Phule 399, 402 of I.P.C. 549/2009 Chowk and 37(1)(3) 135 of Sub judiced Mumbai Police Act.
15. 16/2004 Shil Daighar 506(2), 323 of I.P.C.
and 3, 25 of Arms Act and 37(1) 135 of Mumbai Police Act.
16. 147/2017 Lonawala 363, 452, 143, 147, Investigation 149, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C.
17. 707/2017 Manpada 120(B), 302 r/w 115 Charge-sheet of I.P.C. and 3, 25 of filed.
Following preventive actions were initiated against the applicant by the Police.
10/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 :::
Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt (1) Manpada Police Station Chapter Case No. 8/1999 under Section 100(e)(g) of Cr.P.C. on 13.05.1999.
(2) Dombivli Police Station Chapter Case No. 21/2000 under Section 100(e)(g) of Cr.P.C.
(3) Manpada Police Station Chapter Case No. 3/2002 under Section 100(e)(g) of Cr.P.C. on 15.09.2002.
(4) Manpada Police Station Chapter Case No. 23/2011 under Section 100(e)(g) of Cr.P.C. on 07.10.2011.
(5) Manpada Police Station Chapter Case No. 8/2016 under Section 100(e)(g) of Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2016.
(6) Applicant was externed for a period of two years in Manpada Police Station Externment Case No. 1943/2014 for two years. (7) Applicant was preventively detained under M.P.I.D. Act vide Dombivali Police Station Case No.1 of 2004 on 14.01.2014. Mr. Dewal, learned counsel for the applicant on instructions submitted that, applicant has been acquitted from the cases mentioned at serial nos. 1,2,7,8,9,11 & 15 and the Police have submitted 'B-summary' report in the case at serial no. 16 above.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2016) 15 SCC 422, in para 15 has held as under :-
11/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 :::
Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt "15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 489, in para No.18,19 and 20 has held as under:-
"18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial 12/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so.
19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher court or a coordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the issues which had been 13/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be reagitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting.
20. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, are binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view of the guarantee conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by courts earlier, including the Apex Court of the country."
14. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeru Yadav (supra) has been followed in a subsequent decision by it in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. 14/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 :::
Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt reported in (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para Nos.15,16 and 17 has held as under:-
"15. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri)1974. The requisite factors are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, it has been opined that while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors. We may usefully reproduce the said passage:-
(SCC p. 499, para 9) "9....among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if 15/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
"16. In CBI Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 SCC 452 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 563, the Court had reiterated the principle by observing thus : (SCC p. 465, para 34) "34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the 16/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." (emphasis in original)
17. From the aforesaid principles, it is quite clear that an Order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. In this context, we may, with profit, reproduce a passage from Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527, wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail observed:
(SCC pp. 514-15, para 16) "16. The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed (Mitthan Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031) by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the second respondent? We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bedrock of the constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as 17/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. (The) society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from its member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law."
15. Learned A.P.P. submitted that, in the month of November 2019, in the evening, two unidentified persons threatened witness namely Mr. Sunil Suryavanshi, a witness to the present crime with dire consequences, if he gives evidence against the present applicant and other co-accused in Court. 18/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 :::
Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt A non-cognizable offence has been registered with Manpada Police Station, Dombivali, District-Thane in that behalf. As noted in the submission for the learned counsel for the interevenor, the intervenor Kunal Patil has been provided with police protection, taking into consideration the threat perception to his life.
16. In view of the fact that, the intervenor has identified the applicant in Court as one of the assailants, in his substantive evidence recorded in Sessions Case No.150 of 2007, there is more reason for the applicant to have further grudge in his mind against the intervenor. It thus clearly appears that, the threat perception to the life of the intervenor Kunal Patil has not yet receded and still persists. There is substance in the apprehension expressed by the intervenor Mr. Kunal Patil in that behalf.
17. Even if, the applicant as of today has undergone about three years of imprisonment that cannot be sole ground for his release on bail. The antecedents at the discredit of the applicant and preventive actions initiated by the police from time to time, clearly indicates his propensity towards criminality and if the applicant is released on bail, he will certainly pursue his incomplete mission of elimination of intervenor Mr.Kunal Patil.
18. The Sessions Case bearing No. 150 of 2007 wherein intervenor Kunal Patil is an eye witness is pending on the file of learned Additional 19/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 ::: Tandale 17-Cri.BA-329-2020.odt Sessions Judge, Kalyan for last more than 12 years and evidence of only 13 witnesses has been recorded in it during he said span. This Court by its Order dated 11th February 2020 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.369 of 2019 has directed the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan seized of Sessions Case No. 150 of 2007, arising out of C.R. No.97 of 2007 registered with Manpada Police Station, Dombivli, to complete the said trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said Order without seeking further extension in that behalf. It appears that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic the said trial thereafter could not be proceeded with. As the Court functioning is now resuming normalcy, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan seized of Sessions Case No. 150 of 2007 is hereby further directed to complete the said trial on day to day basis, with a view to meet the ends of justice.
19. In view of the above discussion and after taking into consideration all the aspects of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.
Application is accordingly rejected.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.) 20/20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 21:27:47 :::