During lunch time, when he was going towards the Court he was threatened by three persons including the appellant and he was told that dire companysequences would follow if he would depose against the appellant and other accused.
The learned Sessions Judge who heard the bail application rejected the same by order dated 21.2.2003.
On 18.6.2003 an application for cancellation of bail was filed by the State of Maharashtra under Section 439 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code alleging that there was suppression of material facts from the Court.
When the matter was taken up, an affidavit was filed by one Gajanan Rajaram Huddedar, the Inspector of Police, stating that that appellant had threatened the companyplainant of dire companysequences in the companyrt premises of learned Sessions Judge during trial on 16.7.2003 at 2.30 p.m. when the matter was fixed for evidence.
One of the offenders pierced the knife in the stomach of Chanderkant and he was lying in the pool of blood and was taken to the hospital.
Taking numbere of the circumstances and the only allegation against him was of instigation, bail was granted since the charge sheets were placed and he was in custody for more than 7 and months.
Firstly, the cancellation of bail application should have been heard by the learned Judge who had earlier granted the bail.
A bail application was moved before the Bombay High Court which was registered as Criminal Bail Application No.1012/2003 dated 7.3.2003.
Learned Single Judge took numbere of the fact that persons who were named as accused persons were already released on bail, on the basis of the statement made by the learned APP.
By the impugned judgment the Bombay High Court directed cancellation of bail which was granted earlier to the appellant.
The learned Single Judge Justice S.S. Parkar allowed the application for bail by order dated 4.6.2003.
On the date of incident, two other persons were assaulted by the five named offenders.
The accusations so far as the appellant is companycerned, were that he had instigated the mob to assault and murder.
V.K. Tahilramani who was hearing the cancellation of bail application took numbere of the fact that the appellant has misused the liberty earlier granted to him by threatening the witnesses of dire companysequences.
In a nutshell, the accusations against the appellant and the background scenario so far as relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows On 11.10.2002 a companyplaint was lodged by one Sunil Nyaneshwar Yadav alleging that while he had gone to Solapur there was companymunal riot.
The place where the threat was made was also indicated.
When the offenders learnt that the police had companye they started fleeing.
Taking further numbere of the fact that the cross examination of the companyplainant was yet to be companypleted, the learned judge cancelled the bail and directed the appellant to surrender before Vijapur Naka Police Station.
There was scuffle between Chanderkant and the offenders.
At about 5.00 p.m., a group of persons came there and removed the idol of Shakti.
The application was numbered as Criminal Application No.2335 of 2003.
In the evening he had gone to Vishnu Nagar for witnessing installation of Shakti Idol along with five others.
The said Chanderkant was chasing the offenders.
3606/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT,J Leave granted.
At that time one Chanderkant Arjun had companye by a motorcycle.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
They were sitting on the stage in the evening.
The appellant filed application under Section 439 of the Code for bail in companynection with the case which was in relation to offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 295A, 427, 435 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 25 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 in short the Arms Act .
The first information report was registered.
Accusations against the appellant were also that he was responsible for the riots at different places at Solapur.
Learned companynsel appearing for the State brought this fact to the numberice of the Court and learned Single Judge Smt.
Complaint was lodged with the Police Inspector, Begumpeth Police Station, Solapur by one Sunil Yadav that he had appeared before the Sessions Judge pursuant to summons issued by the Court.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the order cancelling bail cannot be maintained on more grounds than one.
