MACHHINDRA KALU GATIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE .

(2.) SHRI Kankaria, the learned advocate for the applicants while arguing the matter took me through the order passed on the remand application by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Igatpuri dated 19-6-1999, 5-6-1999 and the order passed by the learned In-charge 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik dated 21-6-1999 on an application for bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.341 of 1999 and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on a remand application dated 5-7-1999. The applicants and other accused were arrested in respect of the offence which took place on 25-5-1999 and the complaint was filed by Ritesh, one of the partners of Megha Enterprises situated at Industrial Estate, Village Gonde. In the complaint, the complainant has named Machhindra Kalu Gatir and his 10 to 12 associates who came there with deadly weapons and assaulted four workers with their weapons. It is the case of the complainant that Machhindra came with sword and he pushed the complainant inside the cabin and other accused have thereafter assaulted the workers. The offence was registered under sections 143, 148, 149, 326, 427, 323 and 506 I.P.C. The applicants were arrested on 31-5-1999 and they were produced before the Magistrate from time to time and the Magistrate has granted police custody for remand of the accused and thereafter the accused were kept in judicial custody. The application for bail was moved at the instance of the applicants and as per order passed by the learned In-charge 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik on 21-6-1999 one of the accused Sahadu Kalu Gatir was released on bail. As can be seem, the learned Judge has in paragraph-5 observed that the accused are the employees of the industrial establishment and on rivalry on account of Union activities the applicants are being temporarily employed and they were dismissed. The four other accused to the crime were yet to be arrested and further that the witnesses have identified the accused in an identification parade. Accordingly he rejected the application for bail.

(3.) THE learned A.P.P. is not in a position to point out during the course of hearing that any of the applicants have assaulted any of the injured witnesses or the weapons used in commission of the offence. Considering this fact, this court is inclined to release all the applicants accused on bail by imposing conditions.