1 cri.appln 5248-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5248 OF 2010 Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 642 OF 2010 Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent AND Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta ...Intervener Mr.S.R. Pasbola i/b. Mr.Dheeraj Dhutmal and Mr.Rahul Arote for the Applicant. Mr.R.V. Gupta, Intervener in-person. Mr.R.N. Mishra, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2010 P.C :- 1 Criminal Application No.642/2010 is filed by the original complainant for intervention. He is 2 cri.appln 5248-2010 allowed to intervene. 2 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the Intervenor. Perused the police papers. 3 Deceased Ramnarayan Gupta was brother of the complainant, Ramprasad Gupta. On 11th November, 2006, Ramnarayan Gupta and his friend Anil Bheda were forcibly put in a silver colour Qualis vehicle by 4-5 well-built persons who appeared to be policemen. Thereafter, Anil Bheda was detained at different places for a period of about 20-25 days and finally, he was released. However, Ramnarayan Gupta was declared to have been killed in an encounter by police on 11th November, 2006 itself. Initially, some search was made for Anil Bheda as well as Ramnarayan Gupta. After Anil Bheda was released, it was revealed that both of them were abducted by some policemen. The complainant moved 3 cri.appln 5248-2010 several authorities complaining that his brother was murdered, but nothing could happen for long time. Finally, in a writ petition filed by the complainant, Division Bench of this Court directed that his statement be recorded and it be treated as FIR. Accordingly, on 20th August, 2009, statement of the complainant was recorded by DCP Prasanna and on the basis of that, offence of murder was registered. DCP Prasanna investigated the case and filed charge sheets against several police officers. The offence was registered under Sections 302, 364, 365, 344, 203 read with 120 IPC. 4 Prosecution case in brief is that certain police officers acted as contract killers for one Janardhan Bhanage and accordingly, they had abducted Ramnarayan Gupta and Anil Bheda and they killed Ramnarayan Gupta in a fake encounter. The present applicant is a police constable and is identified as one of those persons who had abducted Ramnarayan Gupta and Anil Bheda. 4 cri.appln 5248-2010 5 The learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that from time to time several statements were made by Anil Bheda which were conflicting and contradicting each other and therefore, he is not reliable witness. It is also contended that the case is four years old. The accused-applicant is in custody for about a year. Several charge sheets have been filed and still some of the accused persons are yet to be arrested and there is a possibility of filing more charge sheet and therefore, there is no possibility of early hearing and disposal of the case. According to him, there is no evidence that the present applicant had actually participated in the alleged fake encounter. 6 On the other hand, the learned Special PP makes a statement that all the accused persons have been arrested and the charge sheets have also been filed. No more accused is to be arrested and no more charge sheet is to be filed. The case is already 5 cri.appln 5248-2010 committed to the court of Sessions and the case is fixed tomorrow before the Sessions Court for framing of charges. The learned Special PP contends that taking into consideration the evidence showing the role of the present applicant in the case of abduction and fake encounter in which Ramnarayan Gupta was killed, it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail. The learned Counsel for both the parties inform that more than 100 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and it may take sometime for disposal of the case. 7 Even though the case cannot be disposed of within a short period of 3 to 6 months, still taking into consideration the nature of the case, involvement of large number of police officers and constables in the case of fake encounter and contract killing, it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail to the applicant. If the accused is granted bail, the possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence cannot be 6 cri.appln 5248-2010 ruled out. 8 In view of the above, the application for bail stands rejected. The trial court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the same, as early as possible and preferably, within one year. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)