Datta @ Yogesh Bapu Kamble v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1835 OF 2017 Datta @ Yogesh Bapu Kamble.

... Applicant.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra.

... Respondent.

--- Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, advocate for Applicant. Mr. Yogesh Dabake, APP for State.

--- CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2017 P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the papers of investigation. This is subsequent application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The earlier application was rejected on 24/11/2016 by this Court. The Court had recorded reasons. According to the applicant his name is Datta @ Yogesh Bapu Kamble and not Datta Gaikwad. However, no such objection was raised till the filing of the charge-sheet and only at the stage of arguing the bail 1/3

application, the case of mistaken identity was made out. The cause title of application was shown as Datta @ Yogesh Bapu Kamble. The report is received from the Senior P.I. of Warje-Malvaide Police Station, which shows that the co-accused who is juvenile in conflict with law had attacked the witness, whose statement is recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, Crime No. 376 of 2014 registered against him for offence punishable under section 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned APP submits that taking into consideration this fact, it would be necessary to safeguard the security of the witnesses whose statements are recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There is a threat perception. This Court had called for a report from the District Judge and it is stated that the original accused No. 1 namely, Prashant @ Tatya Limbaji Waghmare was enlarged on bail and he is absconding. Nonbailable warrant is issued against the original Accused No. 1 with 2/3

notice to his surety. However, till today, non-bailable warrant could not be executed. In these circumstances, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

In the eventuality that the non-bailable warrant is not executed till 30/1/2018 the learned District Judge shall separate the trial of the original accused No. 1 with the earlier accused and proceed with the framing of charge and recording evidence thereafter under section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application being sans merits stands rejected.

(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J) 3/3