STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Application is filed by the State of Maharashtra under Sec. 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS") seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Respondent/Original Accused No. 1, Madurai @ Madra Devendra Mariappan in Criminal Application No. 506 of 2019 arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 2019 on the ground that the Respondent has violated the bail conditions. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the sole Respondent/Original Accused No. 1, along with three other co-accused, was prosecuted for committing the murder of one Mari Raman Devendra. On conclusion of trial the Respondent was convicted under Sec. 302 of IPC by the judgement and order dated 18 th February 2019 passed by Additional learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 835 of 2014 arising out of C.R. No.285/2014 registered with Juhu Police Station, for committing offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC. Assailing the Judgment and Order dtd. 18/2/2019, the Respondent has preferred Criminal Appeal No 467 of 2019 which is pending disposal. On an interlocutory application being Criminal Application No. 506 of 2019 filed by the Respondent seeking bail, a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Shri BP Dharmadhikari & Smt Swapna S Joshi, JJ) had passed order dtd. 7/8/2019 suspending the jail sentence of the Respondent thus directing his release on bail. The conditions of bail, as laid down in the order dtd. 7/8/2019, are produced here-in-below for ready reference:

(2.) According to the State, the Respondent has violated the bail conditions by threatening one Dinesh Kannaswami Devendra as a result of which offence bearing C.R.No.120/2024 has been registered against him in Juhu Police Station under Sec. 324 , 504 , 506(2) , 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). According to the State, after his release on bail vide order dtd. 7/8/2019, as many as three offences have been registered against the respondent. It has, therefore, been contended that the respondent is a habitual offender who has acted in violation of the bail conditions set out by this court. He has no respect for law. As such, if the respondent is allowed to remain on bail, there is every likelihood that he may again threaten witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Therefore, his bail is liable to be cancelled. In order to substantiate the above plea, the Applicant-State has invited the attention of this court to the said three offences registered against the Respondent arising out of incidents which took place subsequent to the issuance of the order dtd. 7/8/2019.

(3.) The Respondent has filed Counter Affidavit resisting the prayer made in the Application inter alia contending that he has not violated the bail conditions. However, with a view to deprive him of his personal liberty, false and frivolous complaints have been lodged against the respondent. It is also the contention of the Respondent that the complaints referred to by the State are the outcome of business and political rivalry between the Respondent and the complainants.