[ad_1]
The Bombay High Court last week dismissed a plea by the Maharashtra government seeking the cancellation of bail granted by the Kolhapur sessions court in 2017 to Samir Vishnu Gaikwad, an accused in the murder case of rationalist Govind Pansare.
Pansare and his wife were shot by unidentified persons in Kolhapur during their morning walk on February 16, 2015. While his wife survived, the CPI leader died at a Mumbai hospital four days later.
Gaikwad, a member of the controversial right-wing group Sanatan Sanstha, was arrested in Sangli on September 16, 2015, by the Special Investigation Team of Maharashtra Police.
On January 10, the High Court noted the material produced by the prosecution in the supplementary chargesheet prima facie raised doubt about the involvement of Gaikwad in the crime and that he had not violated bail conditions.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai passed an order in a criminal application by the state government seeking the cancellation of bail granted to Gaikwad by a sessions court order of June 17, 2017.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Prajakta P Shinde, representing the state government, sought cancellation of bail on the ground that the previous two bail pleas by Gaikwad were rejected on merits by the same sessions court and his bail plea was also dismissed by the High Court on July 11, 2016.
Shinde argued that Gaikwad was involved in the serious offence of murder and the incident was witnessed by a minor witness who had identified the accused during the Test Identification parade. Shinde said that based on the statement of the minor witness, the HC had previously dismissed Gaikwad’s bail plea on merits, therefore the sessions court was not competent to entertain the same as there was no change in circumstances since HC’s order.
However, advocate Sanjiv Punalekar submitted that after HC’s order, the investigating agency had filed a supplementary chargesheet, stating that Uma Pansare, the widow of the deceased, had identified co-accused Sarang Akolkar as an assailant. Therefore, the sessions judge was competent to entertain the bail plea in view of said change in circumstances, Gaikwad argued.
However, Justice Prabhudessai noted, “The course adopted by the sessions judge in entertaining and granting bail to respondent Gaikwad despite the rejection of his earlier application by this Court on merits, amounts to grave indiscretion which impinges upon judicial discipline and propriety”.
The bench also noted the question before it was whether the bail be cancelled solely on the grounds of violation of judicial discipline or propriety by the sessions judge. It noted that in the supplementary chargesheet, the probing agency relied on Uma Pansare’s identification of one Vinay Pawar and Akolkar as persons involved in the firing.
“This subsequent material brought on record by the prosecution, prima facie raises a doubt about the involvement of the Respondent-Gaikwad in the aforesaid crime,” the HC said.
The bench said pending disposal of the state’s present application filed in 2017, the trial had commenced meantime and 19 witnesses had been examined.
“It is stated that the Respondent has not violated the terms and conditions of the bail and has not misused his liberty. In such circumstances and particularly in view of the statement of the widow of the deceased, I am not inclined to cancel the bail granted to the respondent Gaikwad. Hence, the Application is dismissed,” Justice Prabhudessai said.
[ad_2]
Source link
