LALITKUMAR S. NAGPAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed on 29th March 1996 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Misc, Application No. 85 of 1996 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1025 of 1995 is challenged in this Revision Application. By this order, bail granted in favour of the petitioner in Bail Application No. 1025 of 1995 has been cancelled and non-bailable warrant is directed to be issued against the petitioner for his arrest and to commit him to the custody. The petitioner along with other accused is involved in offence under sections 302, 306, 506-II, 120-B, and sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Panvel Police Station in CR No. 132/95. The investigation in this matter is taken over by the D.C.B.C.I.D., Bombay.

(2.) THE deceased Mahendra Pratap Singh was a wealthy businessman doing the business of transport and petrol pump. In short, the incident can be stated that this Mahendra Pratap Singh had fixed an appointment with one Satyan - accused No.1 in this case on 12th 1995 at Garden Hotel at Panvel, in the evening. As such, on that day at about 6 P.M. M.P. Singh with his uncle Chandrabhan Singh left his office at Ghatkopar. They arrived at Garden hotel at about 7.15 p.m. On enquiry with the receptionist in the hotel, they were informed that Satyan was occupying Room No. 106. When both of them went to that room the first person told them that Satyan was waiting in some other room with his family and lateron another person along with first person came there and informed that Satyan was in his farm house and both of them are called there. As such M.P. Singh with his uncle Chandrabhan Singh and these two unknown persons, who gave message, started in a Maruti Car of the deceased towards the Farm House. The car was driven by deceased by his side while two unknown persons sitting on the rear seats. The car went to Panvel Bye-pass Road and arrived beyond some place at that time one of the unknown persons told them that they must have come ahead the farm house. Both of them got down and again came in car which took the turn to reverse direction. At that time, shots were fired by one of those two unknown persons on Mahendra P. Singh, who died on the spot. Chandrabhan Singh was given threats to go away from that place. Then Chandrabhan Singh came to the residence of the deceased and informed his father and other inmates and then Chandrabhan Singh lodged a complaint in the Panvel Police Station. Since name of Satyan was disclosed in the First Information Report itself, he was arrested at Mangalore on 25-11-1995. Home of other accused Ganesh Shetty and Suresh Shetty were disclosed and they came to be arrested on 29-11-1995. It transpired during the investigation that some persons having same business of transport and petrol pumps had professional rivalry with Mahendra Singh and, therefore, some of them also came to be arrested. The petitioner herein came to be arrested on 3.12.1995. After his arrest, petitioner made an application for bail being Crl. Bail Application No.1025 of 1995 to the Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay. This bail application along with those of others were considered by the Additional Sessions Judge, who by his order dated 20th December 1995 granted bail in favour of the petitioner and directed his release on certain conditions. It appears that thereafter charge sheet came to be filed but investigation was continued. In further investigation certain new material was disclosed and, therefore, the State moved application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner being Misc. Cri. Application No. 85 of 1996 and the same came to be allowed and order of bail has been cancelled.

(3.) MR . Samant strongly relied upon these observations and contended that even further investigation, no material has been placed on record so as to make out any prima-facie case muchless the case for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. However, Mr. Patil for the Respondent-State submits that the circumstances discussed by the addl. Sessions Judge while passing the order for cancellation of bail are very sound and on such circumstances the bail order in favour of the petitioner is rightly cancelled.