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.1253 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1253 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1253 OF 2008 MOHAMMED SHAFIQUE RAMZAN ALI ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr Subhash Jha i/b D. V. Kale, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the Applicant. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 5.6.2008. DATED: 5.6.2008. DATED: 5.6.2008. 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 seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.116 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Kurla Police Station. 4. Mr Jha, learned counsel for the applicant, urged that on the last date of hearing the discrepancy in the ration card was noticed by this Court. As such, no bail was granted and the matter was adjourned permitting the applicant to explain the discrepancy in the ration card. 5. Mr Jha submits that, now he has filed an affidavit, stating that the discrepancy crept in the ration card has been resolved. Ration card shows that the applicant has a permanent place of residence in Mumbai. Mr Jha, thus, submits that the ground which prevailed with the Trial Court to refuse bail does not subsist. As such, the application may be considered for grant of bail treating the applicant as resident of Mumbai. 6. Mr Jha submits that looking to the material available on record there is hardly any evidence against the present applicant to implicate him in the offence alleged against him. He submits that the investigation is over, charge sheet has been filed. Trial, itself, will take considerable long time. As such, it will not be in the interest of justice to keep the present applicant (accused No.2) under detention. That, if the applicant is released on bail, he will be in a better position to prepare his defence. According to him, the detention has taken away valuable right of the applicant to defend himself which is one of the essential fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance on the judgment of in the case of Ranchod Ranchod Ranchod Mathur Wasawa v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1974 Mathur Wasawa v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1974 Mathur Wasawa v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court, 1143. Supreme Court, 1143. Supreme Court, 1143. 7. 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 illicit relation with his wife is prima facie clear from the evidence on record. 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. 8. Learned A.P.P. while reacting to the submissions of Mr Jha, submits that if the submission made by Mr Jha that the applicant if released on bail would be in a better position to prepare his defence, is considered, then in almost all cases, accused involved in heinous crime will have to be released to give him a chance to prepare his case. She, thus, submits that the submission sought to be pressed into service should not influence this Court, especially, in case of a serious offences, wherein it is necessary to prevent the accused from destroying the prosecution evidence. She, thus, submits that in order to safeguard the rights of both parties, it is necessary to decide each case on its own merits. No formula in abstract can be applied. However, she submits that this Court would be well within its jurisdiction to direct expeditious disposal of the trial. 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 Chhatisgarh & Ors." "Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors." "Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri.LJ 2766) : AIR 2007 (Supp) 256. The Apex (2007 Cri.LJ 2766) : AIR 2007 (Supp) 256. The Apex (2007 Cri.LJ 2766) : AIR 2007 (Supp) 256. The Apex Court Court 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, whatsoever, against the applicant. 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 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. The Trial Court is directed to treat the trial against the accused as expeditious one since the paper shows that one of the accused involved is a woman who is not on bail. 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)