Nagpur: Cancelling bail of a murder accused, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that non-commencement of trial within three months can’t be a ground for granting bail. The HC also flayed trial court for allowing bail plea of the accused and directed him to surrender within a week. In case of failure, the trial court was granted liberty to secure his custody by issuing a non-bailable warrant.The directives came while hearing an application by Mouda resident Shivchand Khandake, who challenged additional sessions’ judge order of granting bail to Narshriniwas Potulla who was arrested under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 150, 120B and 34 of IPC, for giving contract of Surjit Khandke’s murder following a property dispute between them.The accused had earlier filed bail application before the HC, but withdrew it while praying for liberty to file a fresh bail application before the sessions court if trial didn’t commence within three months. Subsequently, he moved the sessions court here, which granted him temporary bail.Khandke pointed out that once Potulla’s bail plea was cancelled, the second application shouldn’t have been allowed. The bail was cancelled by former sessions judge here, but his successor granted him bail, on the ground that trial against him didn’t start within three months of registration of offences, the petitioner claimed.Additional public prosecutor Sanjay Doifode strongly supported Khandke’s contentions stating that the bail granted by trial court is nothing but breach of HC’s order.“Non-commencement of trial within three months is not a ground for accused to claim bail. There is no substantive change after the order passed by this court on April 10,” a single judge bench comprising justice Murlidhar Giratkar held.The judge also rejected accused’s request for allowing four weeks to surrender clarifying that seven days were already granted to him. “The sessions court judge, while granting bail to accused on merits of case, stated that there is no material evidence against the accused. This is nothing but contrary to the order passed by this court. Prima facie, it appears that the trial court wrongly granted the bail to the non-applicant without following the order passed by HC,” he said, before allowing petitioner’s application.The accused cited Supreme Court’s verdict of Babu Singh versus Uttar Pradesh government of 1978, where it was held that if there’s a change in the circumstances, then second bail application is maintainable.Justice Giratkar, however, pointed out that in this case, there’s no change in the circumstances because, as per HC’s earlier directives of April 10, second bail application is maintainable, only if the trial didn’t start within three months. “There is no dispute that the trial commenced within three months. Hence, the apex court’s verdict mentioned by accused isn’t applicable in this case. Other cited decisions are on different footings not applicable to the case in hand. Therefore, accused couldn’t have applied for bail,” he said.

Stay updated with all the Latest Nagpur headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.