EMPEROR Vs. DRGURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant along with four others is being prosecutad before the City Magistrate, First Class, Poona, for offences punishable under Secs.406, 120B, and 163 of the Indian Penal Code. On March 24, 1930, he applied to the City Magistrate, First Class, Poona, for being released on bail. The Magistrate refused the application on the ground that he had not then before him the charge sheets which were to be submitted by the police. The applicant then applied to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge refused to grant bail. This was on March 29, 1930. The charge sheet was filed in the Magistrate's Court on April 3, 1930. The applicant, thereupon, again applied to the City Magistrate for being released on bail. On this application the Magistrate made an order releasing the applicant on bail in his personal recognizance for Rs. 20,000 with three appointed sureties each in the sum of Rs. 7,000, The prosecution applied to the Sessions Judge against the order of the Magistrate releasing the applicant on bail. On April 5, 1.930, the Sessions Judge heard the parties on the application of the prosecution, cancelled the order of the City Magistrate, and ordered that the applicant be re- committed to custody. From this order of the Sessions Judge the applicant has applied to this Court for being released on bail.

(2.) The reasons given by the Sessions Judge for cancelling the order of the City Magistrate are that five accused persons are involved in this case and further investigations in connection with the offence are still in progress ; that the offences charged relate to the misappropriation by the five accused of Rs, 15,000 belonging to certain minors. The Sessions Judge proceeds to state :- It is still urged by the learned Public Prosecutor and I consider with some justification, that if the accused are released on bail the evidence is likely to be tampered with. I do not think that this is a fit case for allowing bail to the accused.

(3.) When the application first came before us on April TO, we allowed it to stand over to enable the Government Pleader to ascertain from those instructing him as to the exact nature of the apprehension on the part of the Public Prosecutor that if the accused is released on bail he is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Sayad Usman Dagdoo, the Sub-Inspector of Police in charge of the investigations, has now made an affidavit in which he sets out the following grounds. He states that in the course of investigations, it has come to his knowledge that the applicant's co-accused one Jaibai Karale had pledged a gold ornament with the applicant and the same cannot now be traced. He apprehends that if the applicant is Jet out on bail it would be difficult for the prosecution to trace the ornament. He says in his affidavit that the applicant is a wealthy and influential man in Poona and if he is let out on bail he might win over the witnesses for the prosecution. He further villages that a sum of Rs. 2,676 in respect of the price of certain milk supplied to the Sassoon Hospital, instead of being paid to one Mulik who was the milk contractor at the time, was paid to one Mahadu Martand who was a peon in the Sassoon Hospital and was attached at the time to the applicant who was the Hospital Steward. The Sub-Inspector states that if the applicant is freed from custody the peon Martand may not possess courage enough to say what he knows against the applicant.