SANJAY MURLIDHAR TARALKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is arrested in c. R. No. 52 of 2003 of Deolali Camp Police station under Section 302 r/w. Section 120 (b)r. w. Section 34 of IPC and under the provisions of Arms Act. After the arrest, during the course of investigation sanction was obtained by the investigating authorities under the provisions of section 3 (1) (i), 3 (2), 3 (4) and 3 (5) of MCOC act, 1999 hereinafter referred to as the said Act. As a result of this, applicant is charged under the provisions of the said Act. The applicant moved for bail before the learned Special Judge at Nashik, and the learned Special Judge by order dated 25-10-2007 rejected the application for bail. Hence this bail application.

(2.) I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal appearing on behalf of the applicant and mr. Saste appearing on behalf of the State. In the affidavit in reply filed by the State, a table is shown thereby indicating the various cases for which the applicant came to be arrested and attended to accordingly. Those cases are in all four in number including the present case and three cases pertaining to DCB CID, Mumbai, chembur and Bandra Police Station respectively. All those cases are the one where the punishment prescribed under the respective section for which applicant is charged for a period more than three years. According to the applicant he is acquitted in all the cases where he had faced trial, except the present C. R. No. 52 of 2003.

(3.) According to learned Advocate mr. Sejpal, this a fit case where the court should record that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence as understood within the meaning of section 21 (4) of the said Act and that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.