Kerala HighCourt), wherein in G.Narasimhula v. Public Prosecutor,AIR
Facts
1906 BA.205.2024 n BA.152.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.906 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 205 OF 2024ANKUSH TULSHIRAM CHAVANVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Vijay Patil.APP for Respondent/State : Mr. Mukesh K. Goyanka....ANDBAIL APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2024SHAIKH NAEEM @ NAIYYUM SK. QAYYUMVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Harshal Prakash Randhir & Mr. S. K. Agrawal.APP for Respondent/State : Mr. Mukesh K. Goyanka....CORAM :SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.DATE :29th February, 2024. P.C.:1Heard. 2These are applications, under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail in connection withCrime No.424 of 2023, registered with Jamner Police Station, DistrictJalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 ofIndian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2906 BA.205.2024 n BA.152.2024.odt 3The report is lodged by informant Ganesh RavindraBadgujar, who is a Manager of Shivnery hotel. It is averred in thereport that on 23rd August, 2023 he was present in the said hotel. Atabout 08:00 pm, seven to eight persons alighted from Ertiga vehicle.Out of them, one pointed Gun on his head and demanded key of cashcounter. Other accused were holding weapons like Kukary andwooden sticks. On being denied to hand over keys of cash counter,said robbers beat the informant on his leg and shoulder by woodenstick. The said robbers forcefully broken cash counter and taken awayRs.6,500/- therefrom. Thereafter, said robbers fled away by a Ertigacar. Therefore, a report was lodged. 4The learned advocates for applicants submitted that theapplicants are booked only on the suspicion. Applicant / ShaikhNaeem is not identified in the test identification parade. The applicantsare ready to furnish bail. They will not flee away from the trial. Thetrial will take long period. The amounts recovered from these twoapplicants belonging to them and no any article / weapon is seized atthe instance of applicant / Shaikh Naeem. It is lastly prayed to allowthe applications.5 The learned advocates for applicants are relying upon thefollowing authorities: 3906 BA.205.2024 n BA.152.2024.odta)Apu Roy @ Raju Vs. State of Kerala (Bail ApplnNo.7059 of 2019) dated 15th October, 2019 ( Kerala HighCourt), wherein in G.Narasimhula Vs. Public Prosecutor,AIR 1978 SC 429, the Honourable Apex Court held thatthe requirement for bail is merely to secure theattendance of the prisoner for trial. It would not beproper to deny bail to the applicant solely on the groundthat he is not resident of native of Kerala State.b)Harjeet Chandok @ Harjeet Singh Chandok and othersVs. The State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition No.522 of2019) dated 3rd May, 2029 (Karnataka High Court),wherein it has been held that merely because petitionersare residents of some other State itself is not a groundto reject the bail application. 6The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplications and submitted that the applicants are residents of MadhyaPradesh and they have criminal antecedents. If the applicants arereleased on bail, the possibility of committing same nature of crimecannot be ruled out. Their presence cannot be easily secured for thetrial. At the most the trial can be expedited. It is lastly prayed to rejectthe application. 7In the facts and circumstances of the present case, itwould be proper to rely upon the following two authorities:-
Legal Reasoning
4906 BA.205.2024 n BA.152.2024.odtI)In Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh andanother, (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 559, the HonourableSupreme Court in paragraph 22 held as under:“22.As reiterated by the two-Judge Bench of thisCourt in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010)14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, it is well-settled thatthe factors to be borne in mind while considering anapplication for bail are:(i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonableground to believe that the accused had committedthe offence;(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;(iii)severity of the punishment in the event ofconviction;(iv)danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, ifreleased on bail;(v)character, behaviour, means, position and standingof the accused;(vi)likelihood of the offence being repeated;(vii)reasonable apprehension of the witnesses beinginfluenced; and(viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted bygrant of bail.”II) In Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan andanother, (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 684, the HonourableSupreme Court in paragraph 6 held as under: 5906 BA.205.2024 n BA.152.2024.odt“6.….. We are constrained to observe that JusticeD. S. Bajpai refused to grant the prayer and proceeded togrant bail simply on the ground that the liberty of a citizenwas involved which is the case in every criminal case moreparticularly in a murder case where a citizen who let alonelosing liberty has lost his very life. Another ground forgranting bail was that trial was delayed, therefore theaccused was entitled to bail. This also cannot be helped if alitigant is encouraged to make half a dozen applications onthe same point without any new factor having arisen after thefirst was rejected. Had the learned Judge granted time to thecomplainant for filing counter-affidavit, correct facts wouldhave been placed before the court and it could have beenpointed out that apart from the inherent danger of tamperingwith or intimidating witnesses and aborting the case, therewas also the danger to the life of the main witnesses or to thelife of the accused being endangered as experience of lifehas shown to the members of the profession and thejudiciary, and in that event, the learned Judge would havebeen in a better position to ascertain facts to act judiciously.No doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguardedby court, nonetheless when a person is accused of a seriousoffence like murder and his successive bail applications arerejected on merit there being prima facie material, theprosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the court.Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which isadministered keeping in mind the interests of the accused,the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feelhelpless and believe that there is no justice in the world asalso the collective interest of the community so that partiesdo not lose faith in the institution and indulge in privateretribution. Learned Judge was unduly influenced by theconcept of liberty, disregarding the facts of the case.” 8Perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the report and thestatements of witnesses. In the test identification parade applicant / 6906 BA.205.2024 n BA.152.2024.odtAnkush Chavan is identified. Both the applicants are residents ofMadhya Pradesh and their presence cannot be secured easily. Thelearned advocates for applicants submitted the authorities cited(supra), in which it is held that bail cannot be denied solely on theground that the applicants are residing in another State. 9The applicants have criminal antecedents. A CrimeNo.307 of 2023, registered with Muktai Nagar Police Station, DistrictJalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 ofthe IPC, under Section Section 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act andunder Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, is registered againstthem. 10The learned advocates for applicants submitted that thealleged incident took place at Jamner Taluka and Muktai Nagar Talukaof district Jalgaon, which is adjacent to Burhanpur district.11Considering the antecedents of these applicants, not onlyon the ground that the applicants are residing in Madhya Pradesh, thisCourt is not inclined to grant bail to these applicants. Further, as perthe norms / guidelines and directions of the Honourable SupremeCourt in the above case laws, the possibility of commission of samenature of crime on the part of the applicants cannot be ruled out. 7906 BA.205.2024 n BA.152.2024.odt12Considering the fact that these applicants are booked forserious crime of dacoity, both these applications deserve to berejected. For the reasons stated above, the case law cited (supra) onbehalf of the applicants are not relied upon. 13Both these bail applications are rejected.[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga