- (1.) This is a second application for bail by original accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to 7 viz., Dilip Shankar Koli, Vishnu Haram Rajkumar, Bhaskar Krishna Uparkar, Hirakant Shankar Koli, Anthony Pascal Koli and Hareshwar Gotya Shankar. Earlier, these very accused persons along with one Ashok Balkrishna Vaiti (accused No. 8) had moved this Court for a similar relief of being released on bail. The said proceeding was numbered as Criminal Application No. 532 of 1980. By its detailed order dated April 24, 1980, this Court rejected the application for bail by the aforesaid accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7. This Court, however, granted bail to the aforesaid original accused No. 8 Ashok Balkrishna Vaiti on certain terms and conditions. This order of April 24, 1980, refusing to grant bail to the present accused persons was challenged by them before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1892 of 1980. Upon hearing counsel, the Supreme Court passed the following order on the said petition : "The petitioners seek leave to withdraw the petition for special leave to appeal. Nothing stands in the way of their applying again if fresh conditions arise."
(2.) As indicated, the petitioners have now moved this Court by way of the present second application. In support of the application, I have heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani, the learned counsel for the petitioners. The State is represented by the learned Public Prosecution, Mr. S. S. Parkar.
(3.) Contention of Mr. Jethmalani, the learned counsel, is that four fresh conditions have arisen after the Supreme Court's aforesaid order and in view of these four fresh conditions, the present accused persons are entitled to bail. The said four conditions as enumerated by the learned counsel are as follows :- (a) More than three months have elapsed since the date of the Supreme Court's order. (b) Chances of acquittal have increased by virtue of the fact that the main prosecution witness Shreenath Narayan Shivadikar has been externed from the limits of Greater Bombay. (c) There is now a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 : (1980 Cri LJ 1125), which, according to the learned counsel, considerably alters the position in matters of bail and consequently comes to the aid of the present accused in support of their present application. (d) Certain statements recorded by the police though actually in existence were, however, not before this Court when this Court rejected bail by its order dated April 24, 1980 and reading of the said statements shows no Drima facie case against the accused;