1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4181 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.560 OF 2010 Sambhaji Khashaba Patil ...Applicant. v. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.560 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.4181 OF 2010 Sambhaji Khashaba Patil ...Applicant. v. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. And Prataprao @ Mahesh Baban Bhosale ...Intervenor Mr. Vikas Shivarkar ,adv. For the Applicant. Smt.R.V.Newton, APP For the Respondent/State. Shri Dilip Bodake, adv. For the intervenor. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1 Criminal Application No.560 of 2010 is filed by brother of the deceased Sanjay Patil for intervention and to oppose bail application .In the interest of justice that application is allowed. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned 2 APP and learned counsel for the intervenor, who is original complainant. 3 This is a second application for bail filed by the present applicant in crime no.19 of 2009 registered by Karad City police station District satara under Sections 302, 212, 201, 120B r/w section 34 of the IPC as well as under the provisions of Indian Arms Act and Bombay Police Act. Earlier application no.2449 of 2009 was rejected on 12.6.2009. 4 Prosecution case in brief is that, the election for Karad Agricultural Market Committee was held on 25.10.08 and it was contested by two panels; one headed by sitting MLA from Karad South Constituency and other by deceased Sanjay. Panel of Sanjay Patil was elected and Sanjay Patil was set to become chairman of the Market Committee after the elections. Because of that the MLA was enraged and his group allegedly hatched conspiracy to eliminate Sanjay Patil and accordingly, he was murdered on 15.1.2009. One Salim Mohd. Shaikh was allegedly engaged for this purpose and he committed murder of Sanjay Patil for contract money of Rs.2 lac. According to the prosecution, the present applicant, who was manager of District Central Co-operative Bank was said to be active member of the MLA's panel and he was one of the conspirators. During the investigation it was revealed 3 that some other accused persons used to come to the bank and meet the present applicant. One of the main accused had even opened an account in the said branch. It was also revealed by the statements of three persons that an amount of Rs.2 lac was paid by the applicant to one of such persons for payment to contract killer Salim Shaikh and eventually that money was paid to Salim Shaikh. Later on, witnesses, who had seen payment to Salim Shaikh saw the photograph of Salim Shaikh published in a newspaper with news that he was killer of Sanjay Patil. In view of the evidence collected by the prosecution, earlier, bail application of the present applicant was rejected on 12.6.2009. 5 The learned counsel for the applicant contends that out of total 10 accused persons, 8 accused including alleged contract killer Salim Shaikh, have been granted bail by this court. Salim Shaikh was granted bail by this Court by an order dated 19th October, 2010 after hearing even the counsel for the intervenor and after going through the merits of the case minutely. In that order, this Court had noted that Uday Patil son of the MLA, who was allegedly the main conspirator was not even touched by the police during the investigation. In fact, according to the complainant, said MLA himself was enraged with the prospects of Sanjay Patil getting elected as chairman of the Market Committee and, 4 therefore, he was also behind the said crime. It is not necessary for this Court to comment about the role of either sitting MLA or Uday Patil as they are not parties before this Court. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that trial of the case was commenced and 16 witnesses have already been examined. However, the complainant filed an application before the Sessions Court under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. for further investigation on the ground that police had not investigated the case properly and that real culprits were not brought to the book. That application was allowed by the Sessions Court but that order was set aside by the High Court. The order passed by the High Court has been challenged by the complainant before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition no.10428 of 2010 and the Supreme Court has stayed further proceeding in the said case and, therefore, trial has come to stand still. The learned counsel contends that in view of this it is uncertain when the trial will commence and how much time it will take to bring an end to the trial and, therefore, if bail is not granted to him, he will have to remain in jail for indefinite period. He also contends that when out of 10 accused persons, 8 accused, including alleged contract killer Salim Shaikh, are granted bail, there is no justification to refuse bail to the present applicant, who was working as a manager in 5 bank. 6 The learned APP and the learned counsel for the intervenor opposed the application. However, circumstances noted above cannot be simply ignored. In spite of the fact that earlier application for bail was rejected, I do not see any valid reason to refuse bail to the applicant in view of the above circumstances. 7 Therefore, applicant be released on his executing PR of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall attend the police station on every Sunday between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. till the end of the trial. 8 Both the applications stand disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)