The Bombay HC recently comprising of a bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale while dealing with a matter related to the provision for considering a bail application for those offences under UAPA observed that there must be sufficient reasons for denying a bail application and that must include prima facie evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused in a crime. (Vikram Vinay Bhave v. State of Maharashtra & Other)
Facts of the Case
Narendra Dabholkar was a social activist who wanted to spread awareness against superstitions. He was shot dead in Pune while taking a morning stroll. The investigation of the said murder was transferred to CBI. One of the accused namely Sharad Kasalkar named the appellant i.e Vikram Bhave as the person who helped them in committing the murder. It was said that the appellant showed them the way to escape on a motorcycle after the commission of the crime. The learned counsel representing the appellant expressed that a confession given by the accused Sharad Kasalkar could not be utilised against the appellant. CBI in the above case could not find sufficient substantial information proving that the appellant had assisted the other two accused in committing the murder. The only statement they relied on was the confessional statement of the accused Sharad Kasalkar.
These present two appeals were filed by the same person under section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act), challenging the orders dated 21/01/2020 and 15/09/2020, whereby the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune has rejected bail applications filed by the appellant.
Contrention of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the bail applications of the appellant were erroneous and that the material brought on record by respondent No.2-CBI seeking to connect the appellant with the aforesaid incident was far-fetched, even if such material was to be accepted. It was submitted that the sheet anchor of the material relied upon by the CBI was an alleged confession dated 12/10/2018 given by the co-accused Sharad Kalaskar under the provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (KCOC Act), in a case registered against him in the State of Karnataka.
It was submitted that such a confession given by the said accused person in a totally unrelated case in the State of Karnataka could not be used against the appellant. By referring to section 19 of the KCOC Act, particularly proviso to sub-section (1) thereof, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant was not accused along with said co-accused Sharad Kalaskar in the case pending before the Court in Karnataka, such confession could not be utilized against the appellant.
The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.2-CBI submitted that the appeals deserved to be dismissed because the appellant had filed successive bail applications without demonstrating as to why the said bail applications could be favourably considered. The learned counsel further submitted that while considering the question of grant of bail, particularly in the context of section 43- D (5) of the UAPA, the Court was not supposed to appreciate the material and evidence on record in detail and it was only to be analyzed whether such material demonstrated that the accusations made against the appellant were prima facie true.
It was submitted that the alleged discrepancies pointed out on behalf of the appellant could not lead to a conclusion that there was no connection between the appellant and the aforesaid incident. The learned counsel further submitted that co-accused Sharad Kalaskar had specifically stated in his confessional statement recorded under the KCOC Act that the appellant had helped to conduct recce of the spot of the incident and he had assisted the accused persons in identifying the escape route. The same accused person while reconstructing the crime scene had specifically named the appellant as the person, who had helped to conduct the recce and that therefore, it was evident that there was sufficient prima facie material against the appellant, indicating that he did not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Courts Observatiuon & Judgment
The High Court held that, according to the UAPA Act, an accused shall not be released on bail if the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. In this particular case, with respect to the nature of allegations and the extent to which CBI has investigated the matter, there were no strong grounds on which the bail application can be rejected. Thus, the bail applications of the appellant were allowed with some conditions imposed.
The bench noted, “the emphasis placed by respondent CBI solely on the said confessional statement of co-accused Sharad Kalaskar under the KCOC Act, is prima facie misplaced and it is also clear that the Sessions Court could not have placed emphasis on the said confessional statement to conclude that the accusation made against the appellant concerning the incident in question could be said to be prima facie true. Therefore, the first reason stated in the impugned orders passed by the Sessions Court in the present case while rejecting the bail applications appears to be based on weak material i.e. the said confessional statement.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
