Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Shivchand Somaji Khandake, filed a criminal application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 17/7/2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Session Trial No.436/2017, granting bail to the non-applicant/accused No.8, Narshriniwas @ Bulli Kashiabulu Potulla. The accused was arrested for allegedly giving a contract to kill Surjit Khandke due to a property dispute. The applicant had earlier moved a bail application before the High Court, which was dismissed with a direction that if the trial did not commence within three months, the accused could renew the bail application. The trial court, however, granted bail on the ground that there was no direct evidence against accused No.8 and that other accused had been granted bail. The High Court, upon hearing the applicant's counsel, found that the trial court had not followed its earlier directions and that the charge had already been framed, indicating the trial had commenced. The High Court also noted that the trial court's observation of no direct evidence was contrary to the material on record. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application, set aside the bail order, and directed the accused to surrender forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail Cancellation - Breach of High Court Directions - The trial court granted bail to accused No.8 despite the High Court's earlier order refusing bail and directing expeditious trial within three months. The High Court held that the trial court acted contrary to its directions and the bail order was liable to be set aside. (Paras 1-3)
B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - Prima Facie Case - The trial court's observation that there was no direct evidence against accused No.8 was contrary to the material on record, including the contract for killing due to property dispute. The High Court held that the trial court erred in granting bail on this ground. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting bail to accused No.8 despite the High Court's earlier order refusing bail and directing expeditious trial, and whether the trial court's finding of no direct evidence was sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, set aside the order granting bail to accused No.8, and directed the accused to surrender forthwith.
Law Points
- Bail cancellation
- breach of High Court directions
- prima facie case
- contract killing
- property dispute
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 185
Criminal Application No. 55 of 2018
Shri R.H. Rawlani for Applicant, Shri S.S. Doifode APP for Non-applicant No.1, Shri R.K. Tiwari for Non-applicant No.2
Shivchand Somaji Khandake
The State of Maharashtra and Narshriniwas @ Bulli Kashiabulu Potulla
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application challenging the order granting bail to accused No.8 in a contract killing case.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought cancellation of bail granted to accused No.8 by the trial court.
Filing Reason
The trial court granted bail to accused No.8 despite the High Court's earlier order refusing bail and directing expeditious trial.
Previous Decisions
The High Court had earlier dismissed the bail application of accused No.8 with a direction that if trial did not commence within three months, the accused could renew the bail application. The trial court subsequently granted bail on 17/7/2018.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in granting bail to accused No.8 despite the High Court's earlier order refusing bail and directing expeditious trial.
Whether the trial court's finding of no direct evidence against accused No.8 was sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that there was sufficient material against accused No.8 and the trial court did not follow the High Court's directions.
The trial court observed that there was no direct evidence against accused No.8 and that other accused had been granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court acted contrary to the High Court's earlier directions and erred in granting bail on the ground of no direct evidence, as there was prima facie material against the accused.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question involved in this application is that :- The non-applicant/accused was arrested for giving contract of killing of Surjit Khandke on account of property dispute between them.
Therefore, the accused no.8 was granted bail. This order is under challenge in this application.
He has submitted that there is sufficient material against the applicant. Therefore, this Court was not inclined to grant bail. Specific direction was given that if the trial was not started within a period of 3 months, then the accused No. 8 was at liberty to move the bail application.
Procedural History
The accused No.8 was arrested for contract killing. He filed a bail application before the High Court, which was dismissed with a direction for expeditious trial. Subsequently, the trial court granted bail on 17/7/2018. The applicant filed the present application challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 439
