STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAJESH @RAJA M. JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Maharashtra has preferred this petition under Section 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent herein by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli on 10th July 1995 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 451 of 1995. Rule has been issued by this court (Sahai J.) on 21-12-1995 and, accordingly, respondent has filed his affidavit in reply dated 17-1-1996. As such the rule is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE facts leading to this application are as follows : Mitul was the son of complainant Mukesh Paleja. He had appeared for SSC examination privately and was not confident of getting through the said examination. The respondent is alleged to have informed this Mitul that his father was a moderator for the examination papers and could see that Mitul gets through the examination provided an amount of Rs.13,000/- is paid. It appears that this Mitul was taken to National Park, Borivli on 14-6-1995 and was murdered there by assaulting by original accused Nos.1 and 2. After death they informed the present respondent about that incident and thereupon respondents alleged to have given phone calls to the father of the deceased demanding huge ransom of Rs.10 lacs. The father of the deceased then lodged complaint with Police and a trap was arranged in which accused No.1 came to be caught red handed. then it was disclosed in the investigation that Mitul has been murdered. In that connection respondent came to be arrested by Police and then the respondent filed Misc. Application No.451 of 1995 for his release on bail. The offence alleged were under Section 302, 385 and 387 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on consideration of the application came to the conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for holding the respondent guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and, therefore, granted bail in a sum of Rs.8,000/- by the impugned order. In coming to this conclusion the learned Magistrate in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his judgment observed:

(3.) THE learned advocate Mr.Markande for the respondent supported the order of the learned Magistrate.