1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4425 OF 2009 Shri Santosh Baburao Shelke and another .. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Opponent At the instance of Shivajinagar Police Station Ichalkaranji Dist. Kolhapur Shri Sandesh Patil i/b Prashant Jadhav, for the applicants Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009 P. C. 1. The applicants have moved this urgent application for bail. The applicants have preferred an application against order dated 10.10.2009 of rejection of bail passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ichalkaranji. 2. The applicants are prosecuted under Section 307, 143, 147, 149, 332, 295, 436, 427 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act. All the accused were 2 arrested on 8th September, 2009. However, they moved the application for bail on 9th October, 2009i.e on Friday, 2009 before the Sessions Judge on the sole ground that they wanted to execute their right to vote on 13 October, 2009 and submitted that for that purpose they be released on a temporary bail. The said application was rejected by the Learned Judge, by passing order on the holiday i.e. on 10th October. It shows that the Learned Sessions Judge has attended the matter on Holiday, considering the due date of the election and the urgency made out by the applicants. 3. The Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it is their fundamental right to vote. Learned APP has submitted that it is not a fundamental right but a statutory right of the accused. She has further submitted that no such provision is available under the rules of the Election Commission and the Handbook for Returning Officer. She has also expressed that no provisions can be made regarding the voting of the inmates in the prison due to the short of time and the accused are detained for the violation of the law. 4. The applicant accused have moved this application for 3 temporary bail on 9th October, 2009 on the ground of right to vote. Today the applicants have filed this bail application and challenged the order dated 10th October, 2009 of the Sessions Judge. I fail to understand, why the accused did not move application on this ground earlier. By moving the application at the eleventh hour and especially on the previous day of the election/voting, an artificial urgency is created. The the accused were having knowledge of the date of the election much earlier. The accused were arrested a month back. It is to be noted that the accused have already moved the bail application on 6th October, 2009 before the Bench to whom the bail applications are assigned and the said bail application is pending. However, in the said application this ground of right to vote is not taken. Under these circumstances, the application is rejected. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) jpc/-