Bombay High Court
Mangal @ Sajan S/O Bhimrao Bagade vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ... on 10 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/4 12-BA 66.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 66 OF 2021
Mangal @ Sajan s/o Bhimrao Bagade
vs.
State of Maharashtra through PSO, PS Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N. H. Samudre, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. A. M. Kadukar, APP for respondent State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 10th JUNE, 2021
Hearing was conducted through Video
Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.
2. This is the third bail application filed on
behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection
with FIR No.0085 dated 17/03/2018, registered for
offence under Section 302 of the IPC, at Police
Station, Parseoni, District Nagpur.
KOLHE
2/4 12-BA 66.2021
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
applicant fairly brought to the notice of this Court
that the first bail application i.e. Criminal Application
(BA) No.946 of 2018 was rejected by order dated
30/10/2018. It was also brought to the notice of this
Court, that the second bail application claiming bail
on medical ground was also rejected by order dated
25/09/2019 passed in Criminal Application (BA)
No.865 of 2019.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant has been behind bars for
more than three years and that trial is not proceeding
in an expeditious manner. It was submitted that since
there was relationship between the applicant and the
deceased, this Court may consider enlarging the
applicant on bail.
5. The learned APP opposed the prayer made
in the present application and submitted that there
was no change in circumstances after first bail
application of the applicant was rejected by this Court
on merits by the aforesaid order dated 30/10/2018.
6. It is relevant that when the first bail
application i.e. Criminal Application (BA) No.946 of
KOLHE
3/4 12-BA 66.2021
2018 was rejected by order dated 30/10/2018, the
investigation was already completed and charge-sheet
was also filed. This Court while considering the case
of the applicant on the question of bail on merits had
observed as follows :-
"From the perusal of charge-sheet, it
reveals that the applicant had one sided love affairs
with the deceased. Deceased was in service in WCL.
He was always teasing and chasing her. On the day
of incident, she was going along with her
mother/complainant. Accused gave dash to the
scooty driven by the deceased. Mother and
deceased fell down. Immediately this applicant gave
several stabs of knife on the person of deceased.
Complainant herself is an eye witness. There are
other two eye witnesses who have seen the accused
while committing the crime. Their statements, at
this stage, cannot be discarded only because their
names are not stated in the report. FIR itself
indicates that it is first information to the police. It
is not complete encyclopedia. Even report can be
given on phone. This does not mean that each and
everything should be stated before the police while
lodging the report. During the investigation, it is the
duty of Investigating Officer to collect the evidence.
Statements of other eye witnesses cannot not be
discarded at this stage only on the ground that their
names are not stated in the FIR lodged by the
complainant. There is prima facie evidence against
the applicant.
Hence, the application is rejected."
KOLHE
4/4 12-BA 66.2021
7. Perusal of the above quoted portion of the
said order passed by this Court shows that the
material on record was considered in detail and it was
found that the applicant had failed to make out any
case for grant of bail.
8. The subsequent application for bail filed
on medical grounds also stood rejected on
25/09/2019. It is a clear position on facts in the
present case that there is no change in circumstance
after 30/10/2018, when the first bail application was
rejected on merits and therefore, this Court is not
inclined to consider the prayer made in the present
application for grant of bail.
9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that the trial Court should be
directed to complete the trial expeditiously. In view of
the fact that the applicant was arrested as far back on
17/03/2018, the trial Court is directed to make an
endeavor to complete the trial and render judgment as
expeditiously as possible.
10. Application stands dismissed.
JUDGE
KOLHE
