SHANKAR RAMJI KOPURWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has a serious grievance against the impugned order that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon did not consider the application on merit. He has pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has incorrectly observed in paragraph No.6 that though the earlier bail application of the present applicant was decided before filing of the charge sheet, this is a second bail application. He also pointed out that the incorrect observations have been recorded in paragraph No.8 of its order that as such no change-in-circumstances have been taken place after the earlier bail application of the accused was rejected as above, except the fact that now the charge sheet is filed. However, after due investigation and after having sufficient material, the charge sheet has came to be filed and hence, the accused cannot take help of the fact that now the charge sheet is filed. He would further argue that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon has misunderstood the law that filing of the charge sheet is no change-in-circumstance.

(3.) The Bombay High Court in the case of Laxman Irappa Hatti and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra ; 2004 Cri.L.J. 3802 has elaborately discussed on the point of change-in- circumstances in paragraph No.9, which reads thus :