MOHAN ANANT SHUKLA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No.I-20 of 2006 initially registered with Kalamboli Police Station and re-registered as RC No.1(S)/2009 by the C.B.I. for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 and other sections of the I.P.C.

(2.) THE basic facts are that on 3rd June 2006 Mr. Pawan Raje Nimbalkar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was travelling as a passenger in a SKODA car driven by Samad Kazi. On a highway near Kalamboli, his car was overtaken by a green coloured INDICA car in which accused nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 were travelling. The accused nos.4, 5 and 6 got down and two of them, viz. accused nos.5 and 6, shot dead the deceased with a revolver and a pistol. They also shot dead the driver Samad Kazi and made their way in the INDICA car after throwing away the weapons used. The INDICA car was also abandoned at some distance. An offence was registered at Kalamboli police station and investigation commenced. Aggrieved by the slow pace of investigation, Mrs. Anandibai Nimbalkar - wife of the deceased, moved this Court by Writ Petition No.81 of 2008. By an order dated 23rd October 2008, a Division Bench of this Court transferred the investigation to C.B.I. who commenced the investigation by registering the offence under RC No.1(S)/2009. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and is arrayed as accused no.3 in the chargesheet.

(3.) MR. Ejaz Khan, learned Special Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. strongly opposed the request for bail. He refuted that there was no prima facie material connecting the applicant to the crime. He submitted that there was strong evidence about the conspiracy and participation of the applicant in the conspiracy to kill the deceased. Mr. Khan submitted that at the stage of bail the Court is required only to consider whether there was prima facie material against the applicant and if there was prima facie material it was enough to reject the bail. As regards the ground of parity, he submitted that the case of the applicant was different from Dr. Patil who has been granted bail by the Court of Sessions. The role played by the applicant was different than the role of Dr. Patil and therefore the principle of parity was not applicable. As regards the third ground, he submitted that though custody of the applicant was not needed for the purpose of investigation, taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence the bail should be denied.