The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to crosscheck the truthfulness of allegations, the relevance of confessional statements made by co-accused in different cases, and the consideration of the constitutional right to speedy trial in granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Heard.

2. Admit. Both the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. These two appeals are filed by the same person under section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act), challenging the orders dated 21/01/2020 and 15/09/2020, whereby the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune has rejected bail applications filed by the appellant.

4. The facts leading up to filing of these two appeals are that on 20/08/2013, Dr.Narendra Dabholkar, an activist seeking to spread awareness against superstitions, was shot-dead in Pune. A First Information Report was registered at the Deccan Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, against two unknown persons. It is the case of the prosecution that Dr. Dabholkar was shot-dead when he was taking his morning walk on the said date. On 09/05/2014, the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The investigation continued without much success till 2016, when the CBI found material against one Virendrasingh Tavade of Sanatan Hindu Sanstha. The said person was arrested in June 2016 and further investigation led to Sharad Kalaskar and Sachin Andure, the two persons who allegedly shot the bullets, which led to the death of Dr.Dabholkar. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid three persons and offence under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) was also added. The charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also section 16 of the UAPA.

5. Further investigation was undertaken and according to respondent No.2-CBI, material was unearthed which connected the appellant with the said offence. It was alleged that when reconstruction of the crime scene was undertaken at the behest of the said accused Sharad Kalaskar, in the proceeding recorded in the presence of independent witnesses, the said accused named the appellant herein as the person, who had helped them to conduct a recce of the spot where Dr.Dabholkar was shot-dead, about 15 days prior to the date of the incident. It was also stated that the appellant allegedly showed them the way to escape on motorcycle after committing the crime. The said accused also allegedly identified the photograph of the appellant. On the basis of such material, on 25/05/2019, the appellant came to be arrested and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 20/11/2019, against the appellant and another accused person, in connection with the said crime.

6. The appellant had moved a bail application prior to filing of charge-sheet against him, which was rejected on 17/08/2019. After filing of the aforesaid supplementary charge-sheet on 20/11/2019, the appellant filed bail application, which stood rejected by order dated 21/01/2020, which is subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2020. The appellant had moved another bail application before the Sessions Court on the ground that the said appeal pending before this Court was not being heard as this Court was taking up only urgent matters due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The said bail application was also rejected by the Sessions Court on 15/09/2020, which is the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No.472 of 2020.

7. Mr. Subhash Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, appearing in Criminal Appeal No.472 of 2020 and Mr. Ghanshaym Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant appearing in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2020, submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the bail applications of the appellant were erroneous and that the material brought on record by respondent No.2-CBI seeking to connect the appellant with the aforesaid incident was far-fetched, even if such material was to be accepted. It was submitted that the sheet anchor of the materia