The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order of rejection of the application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed by the learned Special Judge. The Court observed that the filing of a charge sheet subsequently amounts to a change in the circumstance, giving a right to the concerned accused to make a fresh application for bail.
Brief Facts:
Present respondent No.3 lodged an FIR against the present appellants and their two brothers Dnyaneshwar and Mohan and one Shivraj Datta Adude, which came to be registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 452, 354, 354-A, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act.
An application was filed for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; it came to be rejected. It was rejected mainly on the ground that there was a previous bail application filed by the appellants, which came to be rejected on 16.01.2023 by giving observations. Those observations were quoted by the learned Special Judge and then it was stated that filing of a charge sheet subsequent to the said application was not a change in circumstance. Further, another criminal case was filed against the present appellants. In that case, they were not appearing and, therefore, Non-Bailable Warrant came to be issued. Thus, it was said that they are not cooperating with the law and the Court and when they are misusing their liberty, they are not entitled to get bail.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Special Judge had not considered again the merits of the case and relied on the observations passed by him on the earlier occasion when at that time, the charge sheet was not filed. Without touching the merits of the case, the application ought not to have been rejected in a summary way. Further, it was argued that the application filed by Dnyaneshwar for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whose earlier application was also rejected on the same ground, has been granted bail by the same Court by order dated 30.05.2023 and therefore, on the ground of parity, the appellants deserve to be released on bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that even if we consider the merits of the case, then the role of the appellants would make it clear that the appellants are the sand mafias. They used sharp weapons like swords and blunt weapons like iron rods. If the appellants are released on bail, they would continue to create terror in the vicinity.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the order which was passed below cannot be said to be an order on merits. It was a very cryptic order and what was mainly considered was the observations in Bail Application decided on 16.01.2023. The Court observed that filing of a charge sheet subsequently amounts to a change in the circumstance, giving a right to the concerned accused to make a fresh application for bail. Each bail application will have to be decided on its own merits. The support of observations in the earlier order can be taken, but it cannot be the sole reason to reject a fresh bail application.
The Court also cautioned the judicial officer that they should minutely see the applications and after application of mind, should arrive at a conclusion. When apparently the accused persons were before the Magistrate, he could have ascertained whether they signed the document or not and could have questioned the Advocate as to how in place of the signature of all the three accused, their names are written which are in the same handwriting. Even if it was the application on behalf of those accused persons, then it was not necessary to mention the name at the place where usually the signature is put.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, partly allowing the appeal, held that it would a take long time to stand the trial and, therefore, the appellants need not be kept behind bars.
Case Title: Yogesh & Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.317 OF 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Ashwini Lomte
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. V. S. Choudhari, and Mr. V. A. Chavan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
