Satender Pal Singh @ Twinkle vs State on 24 March, 2009
Bail Application No. 159/2008 Page 3 of 13
5A. It is then contended that no useful purpose would be served in keeping
the Petitioner in custody when there was no danger of his tampering the
evidence nor delaying the completion of trial. About threats to witnesses, it
is submitted that no complaint has been received from any witness by the
police. It is pointed out that the track record of the complainant also showed
his criminal past and therefore the entire prosecution at the instance of such
a person stood vitiated. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Ranjitsingh
Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 JCC 689,
Dattatray Krishnaji Ghule v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (2) SCALE 585,
Gokul Bhagaji Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 475, Dilip
Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 133, Vasanthi v.
State of A.P. 2005 (2) JCC 1005 and Channa Boyanna Krishna Yadav v.
State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC 242.