IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1674 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1674 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1674 OF 2008 Sambhaji Zite .. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr Sudhir Halli, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms P. P. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 19.6.2008. DATED: 19.6.2008. DATED: 19.6.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and material available on record. 3. The applicant has filed present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after having suffered adverse order dated 17.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.474 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4 (25) of the Arms Act registered with Nigadi Police Station. 4. The above application is strongly opposed by the learned A.P.P. contending that the involvement of the applicant in a heinous crime of liquidating the deceased because of previous enmity. She further submits that sufficient material is available on record to connect the present applicant with the offence alleged against him. She further submits that the applicant is an influential person in the locality and that possibility of tampering with the evidence and pressurising witnesses by him cannot be ruled out. 5. The learned Sessions Judge Pune has specifically mentioned that the applicant cannot be released on parity with which the learned counsel for the applicant does not find any fault. The Court below has also mentioned that the name of the applicant has figured in the F.I.R. itself and the offences alleged have been committed by the applicant with other co-accused punishable with death. The applicant has criminal background. There are so many other cases against the applicant details of which are placed by the learned A.P.P. on record with which there is no dispute. 9. Having heard both parties at length, having seen the reasons recorded by the Court below while rejecting application for bail and having seen the circumstances and the material available on record which, prima facie, connects the present accused with the offence alleged. 10. The liberty available under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is general rule in the context of cases where the charges are not so much so serious or complicity of the accused person/s is not prima facie; borne out from the record. The principles at the bottom of discretionary relief provided under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. are enunciated by the Apex Court in "Satish Jaggi v. State of "Satish Jaggi v. State of "Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri.LJ 2766) : AIR Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri.LJ 2766) : AIR Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri.LJ 2766) : AIR 2007 (Supp) 256. The Apex Court 2007 (Supp) 256. The Apex Court 2007 (Supp) 256. The Apex Court held: " Normally in the offence of non-bailable also, bail can be granted if the facts and circumstances so demand. We have already observed that in granting bail in non-bailable offence, the primary consideration is the gravity and the nature of the offence. A reading of the order of the learned Chief Justice shows that the nature and the gravity of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of the society was not at all considered. We are more concerned with the observations and findings recorded by the learned Chief Justice on the credibility and the evidential value of the witnesses at the stage of granting bail. By making such observations and findings, the learned Chief Justice has virtually acquitted the accused of all the criminal charges levelled against him even before the trial. The trial is in progress and if such findings are allowed to stand it would seriously prejudice the prosecution case. At the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of the prima facie case established for granting bail. It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial." 11. The above observations of the Apex Court would make it manifest that while granting bail in serious offences, it is necessary to see the gravity of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of the society. At the premature stage of considering the application for bail, it is not required to go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. 12. The applicant is a influential person in the locality. The possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence by him cannot be ruled out. Under these circumstances, I find it difficult to entertain this application. The view taken by the Court below while rejecting application for bail cannot be faulted with. 13. Considering the foregoing discussion, and the circumstances available on record, it cannot be held that the prosecution has no evidence. At this stage of considering bail application, the Court is not at all required to find out as to whether the evidence is sufficient to infer guilt of the applicant or not. It is enough if sufficient grounds are shown to connect the applicant with the offence. The accused involved in offence which is grave, serious and heinous does not have moral right to seek benefit of the discretionary relief. 14. For the reasons recorded herein and also for the reasons recorded by the Court below, the applicant is not entitled for regular bail. The application is, thus, rejected. 15. In the result, the present application stands rejected. However, observations made in this order are prima facie, they shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)