Rahul Satish Mane v. The State Of Maharashtra
Mhi 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 615 OF 2016 Shri Rahul Satish Mane ...
Applicant vs.
(Orig. Accused No.1) State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent Mr. Tushar L. Pimple,Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP, for the State.
Mr. B. Londhe, API, Miraj Police Station present.
CORAM:
SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV,J.
DATE : 23rd August, 2016.
P.C.
1.
Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant herein is arrested on 31.3.2015 in Crime No.70 of 2015 registered at Miraj City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 420, 342, 120B, 170 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 25.11.2015. 2.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in fact, the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. According to the learned counsel, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, principally on the ground that the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed.
Mhi 2 3.
As against this, the learned APP submits that the complainant Sarita Jadhav happens to be acquainted with the present applicant. It is specifically alleged in the first information report that on 27.3.2015, at about 9.15 p.m., 4-5 persons had entered into the house of the complainant. They had enquired as to whether it is the house of Tayyappa Jadhav. Thereafter, they had questioned as to whether it is the house of Abhijeet Jadhav. On receiving an answer in the affirmative, the accused persons had informed the couple that they happened to be the members of the Grampanchayat, Mumbai and others posed as the officers of the IncomeTax Department. They pretended to show their identity card. They had seized their cellphones and thereafter had demanded the keys of the locker. They had assaulted the complainant and others.
They had taken away the valuables from the house of the complainant. The learned APP further submits that the applicant is residing in the vicinity of the house of the complainant. That there is ample evidence to connect the present applicant in the said crime as there is evidence to show that he was in contact with the original accused No.2 prior to the incident and after the incident. The learned APP rightly submits that this is not a fit case for grant of bail. 4.
The learned APP has also drawn attention of this Court to the
Mhi 3 order dated 20.7.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Predecessor Bench by which the application filed by the co-accused was rejected. Similarly, by the order dated 21.4.2016, the application seeking bail filed by another coaccused was also rejected by this Court. 5.
As against this, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the liberty of the individual cannot be curtailed at this stage and it would amount to punitive detention. However, liberty of an individual cannot gain predominance over the safety and security of the public at large. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. 6.
The application being sans merits stands rejected. 7.
However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and the learned Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by the same at the time of trial. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)