Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghwase recently while granting bail to two individuals observed that support of observations in the earlier order can be taken, but it cannot be the sole reason to reject a fresh bail application.

"In fact, filing of charge-sheet subsequently amounts to change in the circumstance, giving a right to the concerned accused to make fresh application for bail. Each bail application will have to be decided on its own merits. The support of observations in the earlier order can be taken, but it cannot be the sole reason to reject a fresh bail application," the high court observed. 

The high court was hearing an appeal filed against the order passed by a special judge who had rejected the bail application of the two individuals booked under the IPC and the Atrocities Act.

The special judge while rejecting the bail application had quoted observations made in the earlier bail plea rejection order. Further, the special judge observed that the applicants were misusing their liberty since a non-bailable warrant was issued against them for non-cooperation.

The counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before the high court that the special judge had not considered the application on merits and relied on the observations passed by him on the earlier occasion when at that time the charge sheet was not filed. It was further submitted that without touching the merits of the case, the application ought not to have been rejected in a summary way.

The public prosecutor submitted that even if the merits of the case were considered, then the role of the appellants would have made it clear that the appellants were the sand mafias. It was submitted that they used sharp weapons like swords and blunt weapons like iron rods and if the appellants were released on bail, they would continue to create terror in the vicinity. 

The court agreed with the contentions of the appellants and noted that: 

"At the outset, it is to be noted that the order which was passed below Exhibit-10 cannot be said to be an order on merits. It is a very cryptic order and what was mainly considered was his own observations in Bail Application No.421 of 2021 decided on 16.01.2023."

While granting bail to the two individuals the bench noted that the trial would take a long time and that they need not be kept behind bars.

"No doubt, the witnesses have sustained grievous injuries, but definitely it would take long time to stand the trial and, therefore, the appellants need not be kept behind bar. Suitable conditions therefore are required to be imposed. In respect of conditions to be imposed to the bail application there need not be parity," the bench observed.

Case title: Yogesh Dhande & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.