1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 346 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4328 OF 2008 Vivek Vilas Surve & Anr. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.S.R. Chitnis, Sr.Counsel with Smt.V.R. Raje for the Applicants. Smt.S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 30TH JULY, 2009 P.C:- 1 This is second application for bail filed by the applicants herein. The first application was dismissed by this Court by order dated 27.1.2009. 2 The applicants were arrested by the Jaigad Police Station in connection with the alleged crime registered vide C.R.No.20/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 2 286, 287 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3 The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that this Court had rejected the bail application mainly on the ground of the statements made by three witnesses. He submitted that the trial has began and these three witnesses have turned hostile as a result of which there is no other material to implicate the present applicants and as such, they are, therefore, entitled to be released on bail. He submitted that even the Scorpio vehicle which was seized by the police during the investigation and which contained the explosive substances and the gelatin sticks, the panch witnesses who were examined to prove seizure panchnama also have turned hostile. He submitted that the applicants, therefore, be released on bail since this was a change in the circumstance after the earlier order was passed in January 2009. 3 4 The learned APP, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the said submission. She submitted that the trial had already began and the prosecution was yet to examine 20 other witnesses. She submitted that the trial would be over within three months and therefore, there was no occasion to grant bail to the applicants. 5 The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted, particularly, because the trial has began and now trial is likely to be over within a period of three months since 20 other witnesses are yet to be examined. Though three witnesses who had made statements against the present applicants have turned hostile, one of the charge which is levelled against the applicants is that of conspiracy and therefore, if it is established that the applicants were co- conspirators along with other accused who will be equally 4 liable for the acts of omissions or commission by the other accused since 20 witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because three witnesses have turned hostile, there is no material against the present accused. 6 Apart from that, while considering an application for bail, the Court has to take into consideration various circumstances viz. Gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime, the possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence, possibility of the accused absconding and not being available for trial. Merely, because some of the witnesses have turned hostile, that could not be said to be a ground for grant of bail. In the present case, the prosecution case is that the work of erection and commission of a project was undertaken by M/s. JSW Energy Limited who wanted to establish a thermal power station at village Jaigad. The company had recruited number of persons and contractors for carrying out the work. On 11.6.2008 5 at about 9.45 a.m., there was a blast of an explosive substance near the servants quarters. A complaint was filed at the Jaigad Police Station and during the investigation, the applicants were arrested. One of the accused was arrested while he was being paid the ransom amount which was demanded by him. The allegations, therefore, which are levelled against the applicants are of very serious nature. There is other possibility of the applicants threatening the witnesses or tampering with the evidence. 7 The learned APP rightly pointed out that even though the applicants were in jail, number of witnesses have turned hostile. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, no case is made out for grant of bail. 8 The application for bail is rejected. The trial, however, is expedited. The Sessions Court may decide the case, 6 as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months. 9 The application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J)