1 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.1186 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1186 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1186 OF 2008 Shri Krishnat @ Balaso Shankar ... Applicants Khamkar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. S.a. Ingawale for Applicants. Ms. A.T. Zaveri, APP for 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 applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in C.R. No.113/2007 registered with Kodoli Police Station, District Kolhapur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 201, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. So far as the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the trial Court while rejecting the application for bail, vide order dated 17/1/2003, 2 observed as under : "5. On perusing police papers, admittedly, there is no direct evidence available against these applicants/accused to show that they really conspired to commit murder of Bhagwan Gorad. No doubt it raised doubt as to what has prompted accused Anandrao and accused Krishnat to get admitted in the hospital on the same day; but suspicion however, strong could not take place of evidence. There is absolutely no direct evidence available against remaining two applicants. The murder was committed by non-applicants/accused no. 2 Pratap and accused No.5 Hambirrao. In the given circumstances, admittedly, relations between families of deceased and accused are strained and one incident has taken place in the recent past about which the crime is already registered against some of the accused. Investigation is pending and charge-sheet is yet to be filed against the accused in this case. Hence, at this twilight stage, if the accused are 3 released, there is every likelihood that they may tamper with the evidence and intimidate witnesses which will frustrate fair investigation. Hence, I find that at this stage, application is devoid of merits." 4. There is direct evidence against applicant nos. 2 and 3, hence the application at the instance of accused nos. 2 and 3 stands rejected. So far as the applicant no. 4 is concerned, the trial Court while rejecting application for bail recorded that if the accused No. 1 Krishnat is released on bail, the possibility of tampering the evidence at his instance cannot be ruled out. Considering the instance and peculiar nature of the allegations made against him, the applicant No.1 appears to be cause of the incident. 5. In the above view of the matter, and looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicants are not entitled for bail at this juncture. 6. The liberty available under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is general rule in the context of 4 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. v. v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri LJ State of Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri LJ State of Chhatisgarh & Ors." (2007 Cri LJ 2766) 2766) 2766) : AIR 2007 (Supp) 256 : AIR 2007 (Supp) 256 : AIR 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 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 5 and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial." 7. 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. 8. 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 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. 6 9. In the result, the application is rejected. The trial be treated as expeditiously as possible. ( V.C. DAGA, J.) V.C. DAGA, J.) V.C. DAGA, J.)