At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.G. CHITRE
Shri Rajendra Shirodkar with Shri Hemant Kenjalkar for the Applicant. Shri P. Janardhanan Addl. Advocate General and Shri A. S. Shitole, A.P.P. for the prosecution assisted by Shri Sanghraj Rupvate with Shri Kharat and Shri Aniket Kamble Advocates engaged by the kiths and kins of injured and deceased persons.
This application has been laid before this Court today. Initially a prayer was made to circulate it for hearing to some other date after winter vacation, but when a prayer was made to continue the interim order permitting the applicant to enjoy the facility of anticipatory bail, as continued by some Courts, this application was required to be heard and decided finally, in the interest of justice. This application was required to be decided today, because, a pra
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
er was made for interim anticipatory bail and it was opposed by the prosecution and the advocate appointed by the kiths and kins of deceased persons and injured persons. 2.Shri Rajendra Shirodkar, Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for about one year the applicant has not been arrested and that itself suggests that there is no need for the prosecution to arrest the applicant. He submitted further that the investigation has been completed, and therefore, there is no likelihood or possibility of this applicant tampering with the course of investigation. He submitted that the applicant is a person working as Inspector in Police Department, presently posted at Pune. Therefore, there is no possibility of applicant creating hinderance in the progress of the investigation. He submitted that he be granted the facility of anticipatory bail.3.Shri Janardhanan submitted that the prosecution opposes the prayer made by the petitioner for directions in the nature of anticipatory bail. Shri Janardhanan submitted that the applicant was cooperating with the investigating agency. He happens to be a person working in police department and was not likely to abscond, therefore, the investigating agency did not arrest him. Shri P. Janardhanan submitted that 10 persons have been killed in the said firing and 13 persons have been injured in the firing. Shri Janardhanan submitted that the said firing was by use of unreasonable force. He submitted in his written report that Commission was appointed for making an enquiry of the entire episode and the said Commission held the present applicant responsible for using unreasonable force and becoming the cause of death of 10 persons and injuring 13 persons. 4.It is a matter of surprise as to why the prosecution did not arrest the applicant for nearly one year, when normally other persons are arrested immediately and prayers for anticipatory bail are opposed by the prosecution. Less said is the better on this aspect. No arrest of the applicant for about one year would not be a ground to grant directions in the nature of anticipatory bail in his favour, because when the accused is occupying important position, when he is in capacity to yield (wield) the influence on the witnesses, when his being at large is detrimental to the interest of the prosecution to go for trial such accused persons can be an obstacle for smooth examination of witnesses in support of prosecution case. Though he has been posted at Pune, on account of Express High Way the distance has become a matter of hardly two and half hours or at the most three hours. On account of said mobility the danger to smooth examination of witnesses in support of prosecution cannot be ignored. The status of the accused in the society, his capacity to yield (wield) the influence on the prosecution agency for trial has to be given due weightage. Gravity of the act alleged against the accused, the circumstances in which the offence has been committed, its impact on the society has to be given due weightage and lastly what is important is the public interest at large. The society is concerned with success of such prosecutions. 5.Needless to point out that in previous order also all the points were elaborately dealt with. This Court has observed that there are no grounds to allow this application keeping in view above mentioned grounds and the fact that the applicant has used a force in unreasonable way. The ultimate result of that was that 10 persons died and 13 persons injured and there was serious damage to the sentiments of public at large, at least prima facie. 6.No fresh grounds are in existence for allowing this application, there is no ground for giving interim relief in the nature of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus, this application has been finally decided and dismissed. The observations made by this Court in this order should not weigh in either way at the time of trial or future prayer for bail. The parties are directed to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.
"2003 ALL MR (CRI) 207" == "2003 BCR 1519 (CRI)"