Single judge welcomed the second bail application but rejected it, holding that the cited factors were not changed circumstances. Consequently, the bail prayer was dismissed and the case was transferred to the Fast Track Court.
Bail application rejected. Order dated 30th September 2004 for transfer to Fast Track Court enforced.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2627 OF 2005
Yeshwant Krishna Chikane ... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr.Sachin V. Dhakephalkar, for the Applicant.
Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P., for the Respondent.
CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.
25th April 2005
P.C.:
. This is second bail application preferred
by the present Applicant. His first bail
application was rejected by me on 30th September
2004. In the circumstances, Counsel for the
Applicant was asked to address as to what are the
changed circumstances, so as to permit this Court
to entertain second bail application.
:2:
. According to the Counsel for the
Applicant, this Court has not considered the
argument that in cases where three dying
declarations are on record, the benefit should be
extended to the Applicant. This, in my view, is
not a changed circumstance. The fact that three
dying declarations are on record was known to the
Applicant and could be the basis for considering
prayer for bail on the earlier occasion.
. Counsel then relied on the fact that the
Applicant has three minor children and there is
nobody to take care of those children. Even this
cannot be said to be changed circumstance.
. Lastly, learned Counsel submitted that
the co-accused have been released on bail. When
the Counsel was asked whether the co-accused have
been released on bail after rejection of the bail
of the present Applicant, he fairly accepted that
bail has been granted to the co-accused prior to
rejection of the Applicant’s bail application.
. Learned Counsel then relied on the order
passed by me on 30th September 2004. However, on
:3:
fair reading of this order, it is obvious that on
merits, I have affirmed the view taken by the
lower Court in rejecting the Applicant’s bail
application. That reasoning also applies to
co-accused who is mother in law of the deceased
and mother of the Applicant. She has, however,
been released mainly because she is of advanced
age (70 years) and female.
. In the circumstances, I see no reason to
entertain this second application for bail.
Rejected.
. As prayer for bail is rejected, the
Sessions Judge, Satara, is directed to ensure
compliance of the order dated 30th September 2004
for transferring the case to the Fast Track Court
for early disposal of the trial.
(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the existence of three dying declarations, minor children, and bail of co-accused constitute changed circumstances warranting a second bail application.
Whether a second bail application should be entertained on fresh grounds.
Whether the writ petitioner is required to comply with the transfer order.
Yeshwant Krishna Chikane
The State of Maharashtra
A.M.KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court