Meghnath Gurunath Travadan @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 7346 Bom

 R. V. Patil                       1 of 3                           6. IA.1179.2021.doc




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1179 OF 2021
                                   IN
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2017

 Meghnath Gurunath Travadan @ Pillay             ...Applicant/Appellant

       Versus

 The State of Maharashtra                        ...Respondent

                                   ....
 Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for the Applicant/Appellant.
 Ms. M. M. Deshmukh for the Respondent-State.

                               CORAM :      PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
                                            SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

                               DATE     :   6th MAY, 2021.

 P.C. :

1. By way of the present application the Applicant Meghnath

Gurunath Travadan @ Pillay prays for his release on bail pending the

appeal. Mr. Warunjikar, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that

it is a successive bail application fled at the instance of the Applicant.

Mr. Warunjikar further submitted that while rejecting the earlier

application No. 568 of 2017 vide an order dated 18 th September 2017,

the Division Bench of this Court made a reference to two pending

cases against the Applicant. It is the further submission of Mr.

Warunjikar that as there is a change in circumstance, the Applicant be

enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal. Mr. Warungikar

further submits that the Applicant is behind bars for a period of more

R. V. Patil 2 of 3 6. IA.1179.2021.doc

than four years and considering the pendency of appeal, it may be

take sufcient time for hearing of the appeal presented by the

Applicant/Appellant in this Court i.e Appeal No. 450 of 2017.

2. The learned APP opposes the application.

3. We have perused the Judgment and order passed by the

learned trial Court as well as the order of the Division Bench dated 18 th

September 2017. Though the submissions of Mr. Warunjikar, the

learned Counsel for the Applicant looks attractive at the frst blush, we

are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for more

than one reason. The Division Bench while passing order dated 18 th

September 2017, considered the merits of the application. In

paragraph Nos. 5 and 6, the Division Bench referred to the material

against the Applicant which show the active involvement of the

Applicant in the commission of the crime. Reference to two pending

cases was only an additional circumstance. Mr. Warunjikar, the

learned Counsel invited our attention to the Judgment passed in these

two pending cases to submit that the Applicant is acquitted in these

two cases by the learned trial Judge.

4. On perusal of these Judgments it revealed that the material

witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the case of prosecution.

Be that as it may, as the order of the Division Bench dated 18 th

R. V. Patil 3 of 3 6. IA.1179.2021.doc

September 2017 clearly show that the Division Bench could not fnd

any merit in the application and the bail application fled at the

instance of the Applicant was rejected accordingly. In view of these

facts, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Warunjikar,

learned Counsel for the Applicant that there is a change in

circumstance. In our opinion, the application is devoid of any merit

and deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application is

dismissed.

5. The Applicant is at liberty to pray for early hearing of the appeal,

if the appeal is not listed for hearing within reasonable period.

(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)