1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.965 OF 2011 Abhijit Vijay Kadam ..Applicant. v/s. The State ..Respondent. Mr. B.A.Aloor i/by Ms R.M.Dhomse, advs. for the Applicant. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP for the respondent/State. Applicant present in person before the Court. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 20th December, 2011 PC : 1 This is the second application for anticipatory bail in crime no. 87 of 2011 registered at Taloja Police Station, New Bombay for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 2 To state in brief, the deceased was suspected to be thief and the people of the village were chasing him and he was also assaulted. Because of several injuries suffered by him, he died. Near his dead body, pieces of wooden bamboo, base-ball bat, wooden planks with blood stains and stones were lying. The P.M. Report reveals that he had died due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries over the body. There were in all 29 injuries on the different parts of the body. Injuries included eight incised 2 wounds and fractures of three bones. It shows that he was mercilessly beaten by the mob of the people and as a result of the same, he died. In the F.I.R., it is disclosed that two accused persons namely, Sanket Kadam and Samir Salunkhe came from the opposite side and they obstructed the said deceased from running away and they also assaulted him. Those two persons were arrested and according to the prosecution, during the interrogation of those two persons, it was revealed that the present applicant Abhijit Kadam was one of the assailants and he was holding the base ball bat. They also disclosed the name of Milind Ulvekar, who had allegedly thrown stone on the head of the deceased after he had fallen down. 3 The present applicant Abhijit Kadam had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and he also prayed for ad- interim anticipatory bail, which was refused by the order dated 23.8.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Finally, that application for anticipatory bail was rejected on 7th September, 2011. Thereafter, he filed anticipatory bail application no.804 of 2011 before this Court and that application was rejected by me by the order dated 4.10.2011. In that order, I had noted that during the investigation and interrogation of the two accused persons, who were arrested, it was revealed that the present applicant was one of the culprits. It may be noted that the base-ball bat , which was 3 allegedly used by the present applicant for assaulting the deceased was also found at the spot of the incident. I had noted in the order that taking into consideration the information received from the other two accused persons, for the proper investigation, arrest of the applicant is necessary. It appears that in spite of rejection of that application for anticipatory bail on 4.10.2011, the applicant did not surrender before the police and he has filed 2nd anticipatory bail application on 22nd November, 2011. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that one day after his earlier application for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court, the charge-sheet was filed by the police. He also contends that thereafter two accused persons namely, Sanket Kadam and Samir Salunke were granted bail on 11.10.11 by the High Court (Coram: R.C.Chavan, J.) and thereafter on 14th November, 2011, another accused Milind Ulvekar, whose name was also disclosed by the two accused persons before the police, was granted anticipatory bail by the same learned Judge. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that role of Milind Ulvekar and the present applicant is similar and the names of both of them were disclosed by the same accused persons before the police during interrogation and therefore, even though his earlier application for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court, on the principle of parity, he deserves to be granted bail. 4 Earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by the present 4 applicant was rejected by this Court by giving reasons by the order dated 4.10.2011. Taking into consideration the fact that, there were in all 29 injuries on the body of the deceased including eight incised wounds and multiple fractures, proper investigation was necessary. It appears that the first informant was not aware of the names of all the assailants. That does not mean that the Investigating Officer is de-barred from the investigating case and finding out names of the other culprits. Source may be interrogation of the accused persons, who are arrested. Statements of the co-accused before the police may not be admissible in evidence but certainly such statements may be used for the purpose of further investigation of the case. Once the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court, to consider the application for anticipatory bail filed by the same person again, merely because some other person has granted anticipatory bail, would create a bad precedent and there will be no end to filing of the applications for anticipatory bail by the concerned accused. To maintain judicial discipline, unless there are very strong reasons and change in the circumstances, fresh application of the same person for anticipatory bail should not be considered after rejection of one application on merits. If the applicant was aggrieved by the order of this Court, he could move the Supreme Court and seek necessary relief. Once this Court had clearly observed that his arrest and custodial interrogation 5 was necessary for proper investigation of the case, it would be improper and against the judicial discipline to consider the anticipatory bail application again filed by him merely because some other accused persons in the same case have been granted bail or anticipatory bail or that charge-sheet has been filed. None of these grounds can be sufficient to re-consider the earlier order and to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Granting such relief would create unhealthy practices, which are not in the interest of justice and judicial discipline. 5 Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)