BHASKAR AYAPPA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the applicant Bhaskar has moved this Court for being released on bail pending trial. It appears that the applicant along with others has been committed to the Court of Session, Greater Bombay, to stand his trial for an offence under Section 302 r. w. s. 34 and section 341 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Palraj The applicant has been released on bail pending investigation. However, he was taken in custody when the case was committed to the Court of Session, and, when the matter was pending in the Ceurt of Sessions, the applicant made applications for bail on Sept. 30, 1977, January 17, 1978, and May 19, 1978 All these applications came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, on the ground that there was direct evidence of his complicity in the assault on Palraj.

(2.) Mr. Jagdish the learned Counsel for the applicant, urged that the learned Sessions judge did not apply his Mind to the material which has come in the course of "investigation and erred in holding that there was direct evidence of the complicity of the applicant in the assault. Mr. Jagdish pointed" out that in their statements recorded on 19th November 1976 Devnarayansingh and Jeevan Bachai Kumar did speak about the applicant being one of the assailants of Palraja, However, on the very next day that is, on November 20, 1970 when an identification parade was held by the Executive Magistrate, in which the applicant was also put up along with other accused persons, these two witnesses were not able to identify him as one of the assailants even though in their statements recorded on the previous day. they had named him as one. According to Mr. Jagdish the fact that the witnesses were not able to identify applicant on the very next day, throws a doubt on what they had stated on the previous day. According to Mr. Jagdish, much reliance cannot be placed on such evidence and it cannot afford reasonable grounds to hold that the applicant is guilty of an offence punishale with death or imprisonment for life.

(3.) Mr. Hombalkar, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted, what Mr. Jagdish stated about the evidence of Devnarayansingh and Jeevan Bachai Kumar was correct inasmuch as they had named the applicant on November 19,1976, but they are not able to identify him on November 20, 1976. Mr. Hombalkar also says that besides these two persons, none else had spoken about part played by the applicant in the alleged assault.