9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide Order dated 20/03/2015 granted application filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby released him on bail on he executing P.R. and surety Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/ [Rupees One Lakh] in connection with Crime No. 17/2015 registered with M.I.D.C. CIDCO police station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable u/s 376 (2), (I),354(D)(ii),504,506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 (b)(d),4,5(H)(I),6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 3. Heard Mr. V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Pratibha Bharad, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 - State and Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A.D.Ostwal, learned counsel instructed by Mr.Joydeep Chatt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that after grant of bail, it is not reported that respondent No. 2 has misused the liberty. 7. It is an admitted position that applicant/prosecutrix is resident of Secandarabad, whereas respondent No. 2 is resident of Aurangabad [Maharashtra]. As per prosecution both prosecutrix and respondent No.2 were Face Book friends. On 22/05/2013, prosecutrix had been to Aurangabad in connection with the marriage of her relative. It is the further case of the prosecution that at Aurangabad, prosecutrix met respondent No. 2. Sum and substance of the F.I.R. is that after having a coffee, while they were going by car, respondent No. 2 started touching private parts of the prosecutrix and also gave his private part in her hand. Though the prosecutr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, subsequent presentation of charge sheet before the Court below itself is the change of circumstance, which entitles respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration of his liberty. In that behalf, it would be useful to have a reference to paragraph 9 of the reported decision of this Court in the case of Laxman Irappa Hatti Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 525. It is reproduced herein under : " The powers conferred upon the sessions Judge or the High Court under section 439 of Cr.P.C. are wide enough to grant bail. There is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by section 439 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Court to hold that filing of the charge sheet is not a substantive change of circumstance and refuse to enter into merits of the case. The Court is obliged to consider merits of the case afresh by allowing the applicant or his Advocate to argue an application for bail on the basis of documents supplied to the accused with the charge sheet as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. ". [Emphasis is supplied by me.] 10. I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid observations. In my view, filing of the charge sheet subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application would operate as change in the circumstance, by which the accused can press his prayer for liberty on the evaluation of the material placed in the charge sheet by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch material which was available with the Investigating Officer and for the reasons best known to the investigating agency, it does not form the part and parcel of the charge sheet. Grant or refusal of bail deals with the personal liberty. While dealing with this delicate issue, Court has to consider each and every aspect. No one can expect from the Court that while deciding such issue, the view of the Court should pass through narrow lane. In my view, while deciding the liberty of a person, who is languishing in jail, it is appropriate on the part of the Court to consider every material brought before the Court, if its authenticity is not doubted. In that behalf, I see no reason to brand the order passed by the learned Court below as perv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted ". 14. In one of the recent authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 830, In the said Judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, : " The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of the liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect of the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
