HATYARSINGH PURANSINGH TAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Shelke, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Jadhav, learned APP.

(2.) The present applicant who was arrested on non-bailable warrant and taken in custody on 13-7-2006 has filed this application for bail.

(3.) To state in brief, on 15-10-1993 at about 2. 00 am, a truck driver was robbed of amount of Rs. 4,500/- and a silver bracelet and cleaner of the truck was robbed of rs. 100/- by some persons who spoke lamani language. On the basis of that report, crime No. 184/93 came to be registered. The present applicant, who is accused no. 5, was also arrested. He was granted bail. Record revels that he was very punctual in attending the Court almost on every date from March 1994 till October 2001. On 21st December, 2001 exemption was granted for his appearance and from March 2002 he was absent and non-bailable warrant was issued. After a period of more than 4 years, he was arrested. It is conceded that for a period of about 7 to 8 years, he was regularly attending the Court, but because the other accused were either not regular in attending the Court or used to be absent frequently, case was not even committed to the Court of sessions. The case was committed to the Court of sessions in September 2003. It is infact unfortunate that the person who was regular and punctual in attending the Court for about 8 years, could not be put to trial because the case was not committed to the Court of Sessions. According to him, initially, this case was in parbhani before Parbhani Court but later on it was transferred to Basmat Court and, he could not know the dates and could not remain present before the Court. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the matter, I find that, it would be in the interest of justice to grant bail to the present applicant.