1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2679/2007 Chepuri Ravi Reddy.vs.. State of Maharashtra Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Courts or Judge's Orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S. R. Dongaonkar, J. Dated : 28/01/2008 Heard Mr. R. M. Patwardhan learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A. S. Fulzele, learned A. P. P. for respondent-State. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail. The accused is being prosecuted in Crime No. 3316/2006 of P. S. Sadar, Nagpur for which he is arrested for the offences under Sections 5, 9, 1(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1984 read with Sections 3,4/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. According to prosecution, the accused/applicant has been arrested for these offences on 31/12/2006 inasmuch as he was found to be the owner of Vehicle Tavera bearing registration No. AP-10 D 3326, which was found in the jurisdiction of P. S. Sadar, Nagpur and in the said vehicle, several offending weapons were found. It is alleged that three persons by name 1. Jaipal, 2. D. Giriprasad and 3. T. 2 Shriniwas were found in the vehicle, who have been arrested. It is the case of prosecution that these persons were found in the vehicle and they had named the present applicant to be the owner of that vehicle. The offences alleged against the applicant are quite serious. It would be seen that he is in Jail since more than one year. The charge sheet has been filed on 23/3/2007. The applicant is stated to be belonging to a very respectable and highly educated family. The applicant is also stated to be a post-graduate, handicapped, who had strived hard for earning reputation and status in the Society and because of his hard work and sincere efforts by virtue of his reputation in the Society, he has became the Honorary President of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Khammam(A.P.), besides other achievements. The application was opposed by the State on various grounds including that the applicant is facing so many offences for which Trials are pending in various courts in Andhra Pradesh. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this accused was never produced before the Trial Court, and the letter was also issued by the learned trial Judge for his production before the Court. 3 It is also submitted that the present applicant/accused was not produced before the trial Court at the time of filing of charge-sheet and, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken, so also for want of suitable sanction. As such, learned trial Judge could not have taken cognizance at the time of filing of charge sheet and as at that time, the period of 90 days was over, the applicant would have been entitled for grant of default bail. As against this, learned APP for State submitted that the sanction to prosecute the present applicant was taken after filing of charge sheet and there is overwhelming evidence to show that he is the owner of the offending vehicle, in which the weapons were found. The contents of charge sheet as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant would show that the vehicle concerned was sold by one D. Anant Jawahar and his statement was recorded on 20/3/2007 in which he has stated that in November, 2006, because he was in need of money, he sold his vehicle ( offending vehicle) which he sold through one Mathuri Auto Links and Car Bazar, Vishakhapatnam, details of which are mentioned in the statement. He has also stated that the transaction was done on 18.12.2006 and he has received the sale consideration in two installments and he does not know what happened to 4 that vehicle thereafter. There is another statement of D. Jawahar recorded on 31/12/2006 recording the sale of the vehicle. It appears that the said sale was made in the name of one Vishvanadam. It is in his statement that he does not know Vishvanadam. As during the course of arguments, it appeared that the statement of said Vishvanadam was not recorded though his address had surfaced. The investigating authorities tried to find out the whereabouts of Vishvanadam to record his statement after filing of charge sheet. Lateron, three affidavits came to be filed i.e. sworn by D. Anant Jawahar, Vishwanadham and B. Shivashankar. These affidavits were sworn recently in December 2007 and January, 2008. The case through these affidavits is that the said Vishvanadam was none else than the present applicant, who was identified by these witnesses by showing photographs. There is nothing on record to explain as to why there was no attempt made to get identification parade done of the present applicant. The identification of the applicant- Vishvanadam by photograph, cannot be said to be reliable. Of course, these observations are in prima facie view of the matter, but then this fact has to be considered for considering the bail application of the applicant. It would seen from the roznama of the trial 5 Court in respect of this case that the present applicant i.e. Accused No.4 was never produced before the trial Court, as such he was not produced at the time of filing of charge sheet as well as even thereafter though the matter was fixed on some dates. The letter bearing No.486/07 dated 19/9/2007 was issued by the learned Magistrate which shows that the said accused was handed over to the police and he was asked to be produced on 7/7/2007. Lateron, he was again asked to be produced on 26/9/2007. However, it seems that he was not produced before the Court. The learned counsel for the applicant while relying on some authorities submitted that the learned trial Judge could not have taken cognizance. In fact, he was not legally entitled to take cognizance of the matter in the absence of the accused as well as in absence of sanction, when the charge sheet was produced. The main contentions of the learned APP is that offences alleged against the applicant are serious and he is facing so many trials and, therefore, he should not be released on bail. No-doubt, the offences appear to be quite serious, but the fact remains that three accused, who were found in actual possession of Car are put to trial and they are not released on bail. The allegations against the present applicant is only regarding 6 ownership of the car i.e. Offending vehicle. The evidence connecting the present applicant with the said car as in affidavits and statements referred above would show that link sought to be established by the legally acceptable evidence, is somewhat doubtful. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, without going into the merits of the other contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned APP; as it appears that link of evidence regarding alleged ownership with the applicant with that of offending vehicle appears to be weak, the accused/applicant can not be denied bail. However, considering the circumstances of the case and also the fact that there are several trials which are alleged to be pending, the bail would be subject to conditions. 1. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety and PRB of Rs.30,000/- to the satisfaction of trial Court with the condition that the applicant shall report at P. S. Sadar, Nagpur once on first and third Sunday of each month between between 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. 2. He shall also not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence & shall not commit any offence in future. 3. This order shall be operative, if the applicant is not required for any other offence. Bail in trial court. 7 It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter. Therefore, they shall not influence the learned trial Judge while deciding the case on merits. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE