jpc ba587-11 appln304-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 587 OF 2011 Rashid Anis Pawle ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 304 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Pravin Indramalji Bhandari ... Respondent Mr. R. D.Suryawanshi i/by Mr. Rahul S. Kate for the applicant in Cri.Bail Application No. 587 of 2011 Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the applicant-State in Cri. Bail Application No. 304 and Respondent in Cri. B.A. No. 587/11 Mr. P. B. Shah for the applicant/intervenor in Cri. Bail Application Nos. 355/2011 and 112/2011 CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 22nd July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Both these applications can be conveniently disposed of by a common order as the applicant in Criminal Bail Application No. 587 of 2011 and the respondent in Criminal Bail Application No. 304 of 2011 (which is for cancellation of bail), both, are the accused in the same jpc ba587-11 appln304-11.sxw 2 case, which is in respect of the offences punishable under sections 302, 450 and 392 of the Indian Panal Code read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case may, in brief, be stated as under: Pravin Bhandari (Respondent in Cri.B.A. No.304/2011) used to suspect the character of his wife Smt. Chandra and intended to murder her. Rashid (applicant in Cri. B.A. No. 587/11) was working with the said Pravin Bhandari. The third accused Dharmendra Nepali was also employed by the said Pravin Bhandari, few days before the incident. On 14/9/2010, Pravin Bhandari brought the applicant Rashid and the said Dharmendra to his residence in the night. It appears that they stayed in the night in the house of Pravin Bhandari. It appears that, on the next day, some time after 9 a.m. Pravin Bhandari left his residence. The case of the investigating agency is that Rashid and Dharmendra, later on, murdered the wife of Pravin Bhandari by strangulating her and then left the place at about 10.45 a.m. alongwith Pravin Bhandari who had come there in his Car. Pravin Bhandari, then lodged a report with the Nijampura Police Station, Bhiwandi, stating that his wife had been murdered and property had been robbed from his house by unknown persons. This was treated as the First jpc ba587-11 appln304-11.sxw 3 Information Report and a case in respect of the aforesaid offences was registered. 3. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that Pravin Bhandari himself had engaged the present applicant Rashid and the said Dharmendra Nepali, for committing murder of his wife. 4. So far as the applicant Rashid is concerned, there exists a prima facie case against him. The statements recorded in the course of investigation indicate that Rashid and Dharmendra had visited Pravin Bhandari's residence in the night of 14/9/2010 and in all probability, they stayed there in the night. What is clinching is that the property, allegedly robbed at the time of incident, was recovered at the instance of Rashid. There is sufficient material to indicate his involvement in the alleged offences. 5. The emphasis of Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned advocate for the applicant-Rashid, had been on the fact that Pravin Bhandari has been ordered to be released on bail by the Court of Sessions. There is substance in his contention that if Pravin is held to be entitled to be released on bail, the present applicant Rashid also should be given benefit of bail. However, in the view that I am taking, it appears necessary to me, to cancell the bail granted to the said Pravin Bhandari; and therefore, on this ground, the applicant-Rashid is not entitled to be jpc ba587-11 appln304-11.sxw 4 released on bail. 6. As regards cancellation of bail granted to Pravin Bhandari, though he had entered appearance through advocate Mrs. Krupali Rajani, the learned advocate has not chosen to remain present before the Court and make any submissions opposing the application for cancellation of bail. I find that even on 11/4/2011, the learned advocate had merely sought time. Under the circumstances, after having glanced through the charge sheet in connection with the bail application filed by the co-accused Rashid, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. 7. A reading of the charge sheet clearly indicates that there is sufficient material against Pravin Bhandari to show that he committed the murder of his wife with the assistance of two other accused. The statements recorded during the investigation indicate that he had brought the other two accused to his residence in the night and made them stay there. On the next day, he left his house without taking the other two accused with him and then called the watchmen of the said building- one Kulkarni- to his shop. The statement of the said Kulkarni, that has been recorded in the course of investigation, indicates that Pravin Bhandari wanted to keep him away from the building at the material time. It appears that about 10.45 a.m., Pravin Bhandari came jpc ba587-11 appln304-11.sxw 5 to his residence and took the other accused in his car and went out somewhere. 8. Further, certain statements made by him in the first information report lodged by him appear to be factually incorrect from the statements recorded during the investigation. Thus, it appears that Pravin Bhandari lodged a false report to mislead the investigating agency and to show the motive for murder as robbery. The clinching material against Pravin Bhandari consists in the recovery of robbed property from his shop, though at the instance of co-accused Rashid. The fact that the robbed property was found in his shop, speaks volumes. Further, one rope, having stains of human blood is said to have been recovered from the shop of Pravin Bhandari. Blood stains on the rope were found to be of the same group as of the deceased i.e. Group-'A'. Additionally, some chits, allegedly written by the said Pravin Bhandari to the co- accused Rashid, were recovered in the course of investigation and the handwriting expert has opined the handwriting on the chits to be of Pravin Bhandari. The matter contained in the chit is clearly incriminating. 9. Thus, there appears to be a strong prima facie case against Pravin Bhandri. In fact, he appears to be the main accused and it is at his instance, the other accused committed the alleged act. jpc ba587-11 appln304-11.sxw 6 10. I have gone through the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, granting bail to the said Pravin Bhandari. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the material that was available against Pravin Bhandari. Some of the observations made by the learned judge in his order are rather perverse. 11. Though the liberty of a subject is a precious, ordinarily, in a case involving serious offences like murder, the Court do not ordinarily release an accused on bail, if there would be, prima facie, a strong case against such accused. It is because the severity of the punishment to which such accused would be subjected, if found guilty, itself is likely to induce an accused to attempt to flee from justice or tamper with the evidence. Further, such release , in many cases, is likely to affect the witnesses adversely. Therefore, in murder cases, where there is a strong prima facie case against an accused, the Court releases an accused on bail, only where there are some special considerations such as age, sickness, infirmity or any other personal tragedies of an accused or the delay in holding the trial and spending of a long time in custody as an under trial prisoner, etc. In this case, considering the motive behind the offence and attempts made by the said Pravin Bhandari to mislead the investigating agency, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have released him on bail. Further, in this jpc ba587-11 appln304-11.sxw 7 case, the Additional Sessions Judge did not grant bail to the co-accused Rashid and Dharmendra (though the role attributed to Dharmendra is certainly much less) and therefore, his order granting bail to Pravin Bhandari, who clearly appears to be the main accused, on the basis of material collected during the investigation, cannot be construed as proper or legal. In any case, the order granting bail has been passed without grasping the facts of the case and on considerations which were not relevant. The bail granted to the said Pravin Bhandari, is, therefore, liable to be cancelled forthwith. 12. In the result following orders are passed: Order in Criminal Bail Application No. 587 of 2011 The application is rejected. Order in Criminal Application No. 304 of 2011 The application is allowed. Bail granted to the respondent-Pravin Bhandari by the order dated 3rd January, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Thane, is cancelled. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)