VASANT GANAPPA SATIYAN PUJARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail filed by one Vasant Janappa Satiyan Pujari, who has been arrested in C.R.No.370/93 of L.T.Marg Police Station for offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.8.1993 about four persons carrying weapons like revolver, chopper etc. entered one Ideal Bar and Restaurant at about 6.30 p.m. and committed murder of one Pundalik who was assaulted by means of choppers and firing with fire arm carried by one of the accused. The Post-mortem notes of the deceased shows in all 24 injuries of which 16 injuries were due to fire arm. The precise allegation about the present Applicant is that he was holding chopper along with others and blows were dealt on the chest, stomach, arms etc. of the deceased. However, there was no injury on the chest. It does appear that firstly the deceased was shot with revolver and thereafter blows with chopper were dealt. But at this stage it is not possible to know as to whether the deceased had died due to the fire arm injuries earlier and probabilities are that the deceased had not died inspite if so-many shots fired, he was further assaulted by sharp weapons like choppers.

(2.) IN this Court arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the Applicant and Shri Shinde A.P.P. for State. Affidavit of Senior Inspector Shri S.D.Jadhav is also filed by the prosecution to show the criminal history of the present Applicant. Shri Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, pointed out certain infirmities in the test identification parade memo, the delay in conducting the Test Identification parade and the fact that the Applicant was having beard whereas the evidence does not show that there was any other dummy of similar description at the time of test identification parade. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1996 (1) Bom.C.R.page 190, Ramcharan Bhudiram Gupta v/s. State of Maharashtra, as well as another judgment reported in 1985 Cri.L.J. page 191, Ganesh Bhagwati Pandian v/s. State of Maharashtra, which is also of Division Bench. These judgments pertain to appreciation of evidence and I am not inclined to enter into enter into appreciation of evidence at this stage and in my opinion it is for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence and not express anything regarding the merits and demerits of the evidence collected by the prosecution.

(3.) EVEN after entering the entire arguments, I find that it is a case of brutal murder wherein the deceased was inflicted 24 injuries with fire arms and choppers and the Applicant could not be arrested by the Police for a considerable period. He has been identified by three witnesses in identification parade and therefore, this is not a case of no evidence. The offence being serious and there being evidence on record involving the Applicant with the brutal murder, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail. However, considering the fact that he was in custody from the year 1994 since the date of his arrest, I am inclined to expedite the trial. Any observation made on merits of the case in this order, shall not be taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge, while deciding the matter finally on merits.