1 Appln 430 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICAITON NO. 430 OF 2010 Rakesh Popat Bharane ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Mr.Uday Warunjikar i/b. Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar for Applicant Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for State Mr.J.Shekhar i/b. M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for Original Complainant ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14th March, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant. 2. This is a second application filed by the Applicant for bail. His first application was rejected by this Court on merits on 2nd March, 2009. 3. The Applicant was arrested on 16th June, 2007 in 2 Appln 430 of 2010 connection with an offence registered vide C.R. No. 170 of 2007 by Nigadi Police Station, Dist. Pune on 20th April, 2007 for the offence punishable under sections 302, 120B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on sanction was granted to prosecute the Applicant under the MCOC Act under the provisions of section 3(1) (i,ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the said Act. In the present case, the grievance of the Applicant is that the chargesheet which was made available to the present Applicant, furnished without disclosing the names and addresses of the witnesses. According to him, he filed an application under the Rights to Information Act to the respective authorities and after receiving the reply, he approached to this Court again. 4. Firstly, it is submitted that the material which was placed before this Court was not made available to him when the earlier order was passed by this Court. It was further submitted that on the other hand, in fact, the material which was collected by the Applicant indicated that the prosecution had misled this Court, firstly, because the said material was not relevant for deciding the application and, secondly, the said material which placed factually was not correct. Since no grounds were taken in the application, applicant was 3 Appln 430 of 2010 permitted to amend the application and he has added eight additional grounds. The grievance of the Applicant is that a reliance was placed to this Court on a statement made by one Vilas Dhumal, wherein it is observed that threat was given by the Applicant to Vilas Dhumal. It was submitted that, in fact, no such complaint was made by the said Vilas Dhumal to the police authorities and, therefore, misleading statement was made by the prosecution. 5. Firstly, it was submitted that this Court had observed that the threats were given by the Applicant at the time of the identification parade. It was submitted that the Applicant admittedly was not brought for identification parade. Secondly, it was submitted that the timings with reference to the identification parade showed that the Applicant was not present when the said alleged threat was given. It was submitted that therefore, this Court was mislead on account of the statement. The reliance was also placed on the reply given to an application filed under the Rights to Information Act which discloses that the applicant was produced for identification parade on that date. It was submitted that the timing mentioned in the statements and the actual time were different and 4 Appln 430 of 2010 thirdly, the reply which was given under the Right to Information Act clearly showed that the Applicant was never produced on that date. 6. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, two affidavit in replies have been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime 1, Police. It is firstly submitted that under the provisions of the MCOC Act in order to protect the identity of the witnesses under section 19 of the MCOC Act, the police is empowered to protect the identity of the witnesses and, therefore, the names are not disclosed in the chargesheet. Secondly, it is submitted that a cognizable complaint was in fact, registered against the Applicant for giving threats to Vilas Dhumal. The copy of the said N.C. Complaint has been produced. Thirdly, it was submitted that the Applicant was kept in the Central Prison, Yerawada and the Applicant was not produced for test identification parade. It is submitted that at that time, the Applicant gave a threat. It is, therefore, submitted that no misleading statement has been made by the prosecution. 5 Appln 430 of 2010 7. In my view, the explanation given by the prosecution appears to be a plausible one and, therefore, on that ground alone, it will not be possible to change or modify the earlier order, passed by this Court. Hence, Criminal Application is rejected. 8. It is an admitted position that the trial has begun and the prosecution proposes to examine about 80 witnesses. The Applicant is in jail since last four years. In my view, it would be appropriate if the Sessions Court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and if possible, on day-to-day basis. 9. The criminal application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.. (V.M. KANADE J.)