JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:—Special leave granted.

2. Shridhar Khopkar a Shiv Sena Corporator in the Municipal Corporation Thane was murdered on April 21, 1989. The First Information Report was lodged at Waghle Police Station Thane on the same date. Anand Chintaman Dighe, the respondent before us, was arrested by the police in connection with the said case on charges u/ Ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 read with S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The allegations against Dighe are that he conspired and hatched the plot to murder Shridhar Khopkar

3. The prosecution case is that election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, Municipal Corporation Thane, was held on March 20, 1989. The Shiv Sena party, claiming majority in the Corporation, was expecting to win the election. The party was, however, defeated. The defeat was imputed to the cross-voting on the part of one or two members of the Shiv Sena. The said cross voting had angered the Shiv Sena leaders. The cross-voters were dubbed as traitors. It is alleged that Dighe had issued repeated statements to the press saying that the traitors life would be made difficult and probably they would be killed. These statements were published in Marathi Daily "Navakal" dated March 22,1989 and were repeated in a weekly magazine "Lokprabha" on April 9, 1989. Again in an interview to Daily "Urdu Times" dated April 16, 1989 the respondent Dighe had asserted that he knew the names of the traitors but could not disclose the same. He had also asserted in the said statement that the punishment for traitors was death and it would be difficult for them to survive.

4. The learned Judge, Designated Court, Pune, by his order dated April 18, 1989 released Dighe on bail. This Court by an order dated January 16, 1990 cancelled the bail with the following observations:

"In the present case the learned Judge observed that it is a case of respectable person of a big political organisation, his freedom cannot be curtailed if he is entitled to bail. His liberty cannot be curbed if enlarged on bail and, therefore, no kind of condition is required to be imposed. The Court also observed that being a leader of the big political organisation one cannot expect that the respondent will commit any offence if enlarged on bail and he cannot be called to be a criminal. The learned Judge was obsessed by the fact that the respondent was associated with a political party and was oblivious of the nature of the allegations made against him and the relevant materials indicating that the respondent had been making utterances inciting violence. The respondent gave repeated statements to the Press saying that the traitors life will be made difficult and probably they will be killed. This was published in Marathi Daily Navakal on 22-3-89. He repeated his threat and this appeared in an interview given to the reporter of the Weekly Magazine Lokprabha in its issue of 9-4-1989. In an interview in daily Urdu Times dated 16-4-1989 the respondent asserted that he knew the names of the traitors but could not disclose the same. He also asserted that the punishment for traitors is death and they would be killed and this decision has not been taken by him in anger.

In the backdrop of such assertions, it was necessary for the Court to consider the further materials collected by the investigating agency by recording statements of witnesses. The Court below misdirected itself in refusing to look into such statements and concluding that it is a case for granting bail taking into account only the position held by the respondent in the party. The Court clearly erred in disposing of the application for bail."

5. Thereafter Dighe moved an application before Designated Court on January 23, 1990 for grant of time to surrender. Dighe surrendered on February 5, 1990 and on the same day he moved an application for bail before the said Court. The application was heard on February 8, 1990