A third bail application was rejected due to the nature of the murder accusation involving a political rival, the gravity of the evidence, and the applicant's history of seeking improper adjournments.
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.
Cri.Appln.No.4099/2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4099/2013
Mr.Rahul Rajaram Shelke
- APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr.VB Mantri, Advocate for Applicant;
Mr. KG Patil, APP for State.
*****
CORAM:K.U.CHANDIWAL J.
DATE : 4th October,2013.
PER COURT :
1)Heard Mr.Mantri, learned Counsel for
applicant and learned APP for Stae.
2)This is 3rd bail application before this
Court. Earlier was rejected on 3rd May, 2011 and 22nd
January, 2013.
3)The applicant/accused approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court for bail. First application was
rejected on 19.3.2012 while second application was
withdrawn on 12th April, 2013.
4)Mr.Mantri, learned Counsel, says the
applicant is 22 years old, newly married, a graduate,
suffering fetters for three years and his liberty is
curtailed, owing to such long-drawn custody. The
accusations, according to him, being roving to
withdrawal of Rs.3,00,000/- has been achieved by
examination of banker's evidence. Consequently, no
threat perception to any of the witnesses.
.Learned Counsel further says, since there
Cri.Appln.No.4099/2013
2
was a liberty, the applicant is not forbidden to move
the application for bail as the trial is prolonged
for no reasons.
5)Learned APP says, the accused/applicant is
principal accused with his father and all efforts are
made by them to protract the proceedings and to
ensure that the witnesses do not stand to their
statements. He has placed before me two applications
dated 7.9.2013 and 1.10.2013 to explain as
calculatedly the accused is getting the matter
adjourned and keeping the witnesses waiting and to
ensure frustration to be faced by them.
6)I quite see as Mr.Mantri says, that 16 times
the matter has been adjourned in past for which there
should not be any discredit to the accused/applicant.
But, it got adjourned on various counts and
circumstances. The modes adopted by the applicant,
as highlighted in the applications dated 7.9.2013 and
1.10.2013, illustrate that he has gone to keep the
matter adjourned though it is domain of the Court. An
act of moving of applications after applications for
adjournment is an attempt to snigger at the system.
The learned Judge is facing request of making
application for getting the time extended and it has
been ultimately extended with stringent condition to
ensure speedy disposal.
7)I quite see the applicant is in custody for
three years. However, the nature of accusations;
death of political rival of his father – Prakash,
brazenly, does not call for bail. Otherwise, its
impetus would be on moral of witnesses. The
complainant is an eye-witness, who has in his
3 Cri.Appln.No.4099/2013
statement referred to specific role of the
accused/applicant, is yet to be examine. In the
situation, I do not see any reason to entertain the
bail application. It is accordingly rejected. The
observations are prima facie in nature.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE
bdv/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a murder case after three years of custody.
Whether the nature of the accusation involving a political rival mandates bail.
Whether the applicant's conduct regarding adjournments justifies rejection of the bail plea.
Rahul Rajaram Shelke
The State of Maharashtra
K.U.CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court