BABURAO RAGHU PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Marwadi, for the petitioners and Smt. Pingulkar, Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State.

(2.) THIS is an application for bail. The charge is under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners had earlier applied to the Sessions Court for bail on 26th October 1992 on the ground that though they were arrested on the 10th July 1992, the remand was obtained on the 11th day of July 1992 and the charge-sheet was filed on the 91st day i. e. to say on the 9th October 1992. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Cheganti Satyanarayana and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh) reported in A. I. R. 1986 Supreme Court p. 2130, it is clear that the period of 90 days begins to run from the date of the order of remand and not from any earlier date when the accused was arrested. It does appear that the charge-sheet was despatched on the 8th October 1992, which was the 90th day, taking 11th July 1992 as the first day. However, the learned Sessions Judge took the view that after the charge-sheet was already submitted, the right if any, for being enlarged on bail under Proviso (a) to section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was defeated and/or obliterated by the filing of the charge-sheet. In this view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer on that ground. On merits, it was held that there was an eye-witness and another witness whose evidence was sufficient to implicate the petitioner and there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners were guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 I. P. C. It was also held that there was a possibility of the petitioners tempering with the prosecution evidence. It was on these grounds that the first application for bail was rejected on 29th October, 1992.

(3.) THE petitioners then applied for bail again to the Sessions Court, which application was rejected on merits on 2nd April 1993. The petitioners thereafter submitted a third application which has been rejected on 14th May, 1993. It was held that the evidence on record, prima facie, shows that the petitioners were involved in the crime and since there was no change of circumstances, the application for bail was rejected.