The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting bail, considering the gravity of the offense, presence of eyewitnesses, and the need for expeditious trial proceedings.

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J. - This appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC and ST Act, 1989), is directed against an order dated 22nd April, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Vasai whereby the application preferred by the appellant/accused to enlarge him on bail, primarily on medical grounds, came to be rejected.

2. The background facts leading to this appeal can be stated in brief as under:

The indictment against the appellant/accused is that, the appellant and Baban Mahadu Mali (the deceased), were dealing in construction business in partnership. A building was being constructed over Survey No. 12, at Mouje Shilottar. After the demise of father of the deceased in the year 2014, it transpired that the said land was actually the ancestral property of the father of the deceased. In the wake of the dispute, the deceased instituted a suit bearing Suit No. 106 of 2016. Thus, the relations between the appellant and the deceased were strained.

3. The prosecution alleges that on 2nd February, 2018 at about 9.00 am while the appellant was passing from in front of the house of the deceased an altercation ensued between the appellant and the deceased. The first informant Ravindra and his brother Jagdish went to the said spot and attempted to pacify the appellant and the deceased. The appellant went to the house of his sister Sushila. The appellant and the co-accused again reached the spot in front of the house of the deceased and started to abuse the deceased and the first informant with reference to their cast. Few of the co-accused were armed with weapons. One of the co-accused assaulted the first informant. Jagdish was also assaulted by means of sticks. Rest of the co-accused also charged on the informant party. The appellant took out the revolver, which he had concealed near his waist, and fired at the chest of the deceased. The deceased collapsed. Hearing the sound of the gun shot, persons gathered and the appellant and the co-accused fed away from the spot. Accused came to be arrested. Post completion of investigation, chargesheet has been lodged for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323,324, 143, 147, 148 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 25 read with section 3 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act, 1989.

4. The appellant had preferred Criminal Bail Application No. 265 of 2018 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which came to be rejected. After the fling of the charge sheet the appellant preferred another application (Exhibit -2) in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2018. The later application was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 2018 before this Court. By order dated 29th January, 2019, this Court dismissed the appeal holding, inter alia, that the appellant did not deserve to be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

5. The appellant again preferred application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge (Exhibit 23) asserting that the appellant has been suffering from the complications of the head injury sustained by the appellant. There were no facilities in the prison to treat the appellant. Hence, the appellant be released on bail.

6. The learned Sessions Judge was not persuaded to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant. It was noted that requisite medical treatment was being provided to the appellant. In the backdrop of the nature of the accusation, learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the appellant did not deserve to be released on bail as the possibility of tampering with the evidence and threatening the witnesses was imminent. Thus, the application came to be rejected by giving directions to the authorities to provide requisite medical treatment to the appellant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 24th April, 2019, the appellant is in appeal.

7. Admit. Taken up for f