SHREE GANESH BALU BORASE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20th january, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions judge-1, Aurangabad in Bail Petition No. 96/ 2009 granting bail to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in connection with Crime No. 7/2009 registered with Waluj Police Station under section 302 read with 34 of I. P. C. .

(2.) This Court issued notices to the respondents and in pursuant to said notices, the respondents have appeared in the matter. The matter is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the statements of the witnesses, the contents of the dying declaration and allowed the application of the applicants therein for bail. According to learned counsel, the offence is very serious in nature. The Judge should have taken into consideration supporting material and should not have proceeded to decide the application on irrelevant considerations. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the trial Court granting bail to the applicants therein deserves to be cancelled. The learned counsel invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Ranjanabai w/o. Kisansing dumale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 AllMR(Cri) 2337 and submitted that the Sessions Court while granting bail in favour of the respondents has not taken into consideration relevant material. The learned counsel invited my attention to para 16 of the said judgment and submitted that in the facts of this case also the observations in para 16 are applicable. The learned counsel invited my attention to the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dinesh M. N. (S. P.) Vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 5 SCC 66 and submitted that the Court, dealing with an application for cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of Cr. P. C. , can consider whether the relevant materials were taken into consideration. The learned counsel took me through the contents of the application and annexures thereto and para 5 of the order of the Sessions Court and submitted that, the order passed by the Sessions Court is not sustainable. He submitted that the order is passed taking into consideration irrelevant material and excluding relevant material and not taking into consideration seriousness of the offence and, therefore, same order deserves to be quashed and set aside.