STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAKANT DALIRAM SONAWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on May 31. 1990.

(2.) A crime at Sr. No. Part V 173/1990 was registered on May 4, 1990 with Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident appears to have taken place at about 8. 45 P. M. on that day in Ganesh Colony, Jalgaon City. It has been alleged that the present respondents alongwith two others who are shown absconding accused, assaulted the deceased Subhash who was 19 years old with means of knife and gupti. Next, it appears that on May 31, 1990 the respondents have applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jalgaon inter-alia stating that they have reason to believe that they are likely to be arrested falsely in the crime on account of personal enmity with the deceased. In this context, it has been stated that the name of the respondent No. 2 is not disclosed as one of the assailants. It has also been stated that the respondent No. 1 is M. Sc. of Pune University and was working as Physical Education Instructor in an Educational Institution. The respondent No. 2 is a Commerce graduate of the Pune University, who has passed his examination with distinction and has been selected for Police training course for undergoing the course of Police Sub Inspector. Therefore, the respondents apprehended that they would be arrested in above crime by reason of personal enmity by their rivals, which will result into spoiling of their

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, despite the objections, granted the anticipatory bail on certain conditions. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone through the material placed before him which has been collected at that stage of proceeding by way of investigation by the police. On considering the statements of witnesses the learned trial Judge has observed that the other witnesses have stated in their statement before police that the names of the assailants were given to them by police. In absence of any evidence that the respondents were likely to abscond or that they were likely to tamper with the evidence of witnesses examined by the police, the learn trial Judge took the view that the anticipatory bail can be granted on condition that they shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court unless prior permission is obtained, and that they should not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner, and that they shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer as and when their presence is sought for the purpose of investigation.