RAVINDRA N SATWE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for bail has been filed by Ravindra Narayan Satwe. Vallabhbhai Thakkar, owner of Raghuvanshi Mills, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, was escorted by two unknown persons now identified as Rajendra Mandhar Sadwilkar and Rajesh Subhashchandra Roy to his Maruti car on 17th April, 1997 at about 12 Noon. Vallabhbhai Thakkar, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased" sat on the front seat and the persons named above sat on the back seat. The car was taken out of the Mill. It was taken towards the left side and after some distance two persons sitting on the back seat directed the driver to take 'U' turn. When the car was stopped, one of the persons sitting on the back seat got down from the car. The other person sitting on the back seat shot the deceased. In the meantime another Maruti Car was brought next to the maruti car belonging to the deceased by a third person. Some more shots were fired. The owner of the Mill was declared dead. Consequently case under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered against the unknown persons. All the three accused persons applied for bail before the Sessions Court. By giving a reasoned order the bail application has been rejected by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the driver of the get away car. It is submitted by the Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the incident took place on 17th April, 1997. The identification parade did not take place until 28th May, 1997. It is submitted by the Counsel that there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming for the delay in holding the identification parade. It is further submitted that only two witnesses have identified the applicant. On the other hand the other co-accused have been identified by seven witnesses. It is further submitted that the identification parade has not been held in accordance with law as the dummies had not been properly selected. Furthermore, it is submitted that the accused had been taken into custody and the possibility of the identifying witnesses seeing him earlier cannot be ruled out. In view of the above it is submitted that the applicant deserves to be released on bail. Counsel further argues that even otherwise the only allegation against the applicant is that the was the driver of the get away car. No role is attributed to him in the actual murder of the deceased.