STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VISHNU JIVRAM ADAKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although this is filed by the State as revision application, it is really an application under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for cancel lation of the bail of the accused No.1 whom the bail was granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Nasik, by his order dated July 20, 1976.

(2.) The prosecution case was that one Tukaram who was working as a labourer with one Burkule, along with the alleged eye witness Rajaram, was murdered by the accused No 1 and accused No. 2 on February 9, 1975. Accused No. 2 is the maternal uncle of accused No. 1. The body of Tukaram was discovered by the sister of Pandurang Karanjkar on whose field both Tukaram and the said Rajaram had gone for work at the instance of their Master Burkule. Thereafter, a case of accidental death was registered at the police station. It also appears that the statement of Rajaram was recorded on February 11, 1975 as per which statement Rajaram had stated that the deceased Tukaram was drunk and and died as a result of overdrinking. Thereafter, on April 24, 1976, i.e. after more than a year, the father of the deceased addressed a letter to the Home Department impicating accused No. 2 as the murderer of his son, as a result of which an investigation was started, and on May 28, 1976, second statement of Rajaram was recorded wherein he is alleged to have stated that both the accused No's. 1 and 2 had murdered Tukaram by pelting stones. It further appears that accused Nos. 1 and 2 applied for anticipatory bail to the learned Sessions Judge, Nasik. However, the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated July 14, 1976, granted anticipatory bail to accused No. 2 and rejected the application of accused No. 1. Thereafter, on July 25, 1976, accused No 1 was arrested and while the accused was till at the remand stage accused No 1 again applied for bail on July 19, 1976, and the learned Sessions Judge, granted bail by his order dated July 20, 1976. Is is the said order which is sought to be cancelled by the present application.

(3.) In view of the facts which have already been stated above, I do not think any interference with the said order is called for from this Court.