GANESH SUKHANDA MHASTKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard at length. Present Applicant along with other three accused, namely Horilal, Isak and Nandu have been named as accused in First Information Report lodged by Sunil Jibhe. Initially, the Bail Application No. 2596 of 2004 was filed by two accused, namely Ganesh Mohan Maste and Isak alias Vishal Maste. Criminal Application No. 2196 of 2004 was filed by the remaining two accused persons, namely Horilal and Isak. These applications were filed when applications for bail filed by them in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 2004, namely Exhs. 5 and 2 respectively, were rejected by the Sessions Court by Order, dated-21st August, 2004. It was a common order below Exh. 2 and Exh.5. It appears that Exh. 2 was the bail application of other two accused - Horilal and Isak, who were applications in Criminal Application No. 2969 of 2004.

(2.) Both above referred applications were heard by this Court (Coram: K. J. Rohee, J.) and decided by order on25th October, 2004. Bail was granted to accused Horilal Mohan Maste. In the result, the bail plea of another accused was not considered favourably. It is seen from the foot note given by the applicant in Criminal Application No. 2596 of 2004 that said application by present applicant and Nandu was allowed to be withdrawn.

(3.) Application No. 1476 of 2005 contained a foot note, which reads as follows: - " No such application has been filed prior to this either before this Hon'ble Court or before Supreme Court of India. " Due to aforesaid note, the Office of High Court as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor were bound to be carried with the said declaration being made with solemnity by the Advocate at the instructions of his client. Said declaration could not have been sworn because the applicant was in jail.