IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1761 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1761 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1761 OF 2008 Rajendra Dattatray Nivangune ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. M.S. Mohite i/by C.K. Pendse for the applicant. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J : V.C. DAGA, J : V.C. DAGA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2008 : 25TH JUNE, 2008 : 25TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No.312/2007 registered with Haveli Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. This application is moved after having suffered adverse order of bail at the hands of learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-8, Pune passed on Exhibit 1 in Criminal M.A. No.22/2008 dtd. 10/01/2008, wherein the following observations are made. 2 "[8] In this case I already mentioned supra that, applicant is dangerous to the society and habitual offender and he already misused his liberty by committing the heinous offence of murder. It is also rightly submitted by Mr. Hole that, if the applicant released on bail certainly he will pressuring or cause danger to the life of the eye witness in this case. So far as prima facie material collected by the Police against the applicant is concerned, there is specific evidence of the eye witness particularly the person who is doing the business of removing puncture of motorcycle, who has categorically stated that this applicant took the deceased on his motorcycle on that fateful night and it is admitted fact that thereafter the deceased disappeared. Apart from this fact, and from the evidence of eye witness, I think the police established the prima facie against the applicant. Therefore, this applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, though police have filed charge sheet in this case." 3 4. Having heard and having seen the order and the observations made therein, I do not think this is a fit case for grant of bail. 5. 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 "Satish Jaggi "Satish Jaggi v.State v.State v.State of Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri.LJ 2766): of Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri.LJ 2766): of Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri.LJ 2766): AIR AIR AIR 2007 (Supp) 256 2007 (Supp) 256 2007 (Supp) 256. The Apex Court held : "12. 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 4 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." 6. 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 applications for bail, it is not required to go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. 7. Considering the foregoing discussion, and the circumstances available on record, it cannot be held that the prosecution has no evidence, whatsoever, against the applicants. At this stage of considering bail applications, the Court is not at all required to find out as to whether the evidence is sufficient to infer guilt of the applicants or not. It is enough if sufficient 5 grounds are shown to connect the applicants with the offence. The accused involved in offences, which are grave, serious and heinous do not have moral right to seek benefit of the discretionary relief. 8. In the result, the application is rejected. Trial be treated as expeditiously as possible. ( V.C. DAGA, J.) V.C. DAGA, J.) V.C. DAGA, J.)