IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged detention without trial may warrant bail, but the court must consider the gravity of the charges and the applicant's criminal history in making its decision.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The applicant has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No.222 of 2013, registered with Police Station Newasa, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 120-B, 201, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Sec. 3 /25 of the Arms Act and Sec. 37(1)(3)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

3. The applicant had filed a Bail Application No.688 of 2020 with Criminal Application No.1344/2020 before this Court on the ground of Covid 2019 pandemic. At the request of the applicant, the leave was granted to him to withdraw the said application with a liberty to file a fresh bail application on its merits. Since 2019 and after the withdrawal of the bail application, he did not prefer the bail application. Lastly, he preferred a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge on 4/1/2023. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ahmednagar, dismissed his bail application on 5/1/2023. After that, the present application has been filed.

4. In a nutshell, the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Ladda taking the Court through a bunch of papers, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has no evidence against the applicant that he was the party to a conspiracy nor he was the party to the agreement doing unlawful act. On the alleged date of the incident and before that, the applicant was behind the bar. It has been alleged against him that he contacted the main accused on the mobile phone from jail. However, the police, under the suspicion of throwing the mobile handset used for conspiracy in the septic tank of jail, the police scooped out the said tank, but nothing was discovered. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 2013. Therefore, his detention should be considered having regard to the provisions of Ss. 427 and 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has also been argued that the applicant has languished in jail without progress in the trial. There is no evidence at all against the applicant. The trial has been protracted deliberately to see the applicant behind the bar. The political entities, who created a religious issue in harmony to gain political benefits, want to see him behind the bar.

5. To bolster his argument, he relied on the case of this Court in Ashutosh Ashok Butte-Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Bail Application No.312 of 2021 and Hitesh Pravinchand Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2003 SCC Online Bom. 1003. Recently after the application was reserved for the order, he placed on record the case of Bhaurao @ Dadasaheb Raybhan Dhamale Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 926/2023) (Arising out of SLP (C/Crl.) No. 12549/2022) decided on 24/3/2023 Supreme Court, and the order of this court dtd. 4/3/2022 passed in the case of Bhaurao @ Dadasaheb Raybhan Dhamale @ Dadasheb Raybhan Dhamale Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Bail application No.1530 of 2019 and prayed to grant the bail.

6. Per contra, the learned APP and learned counsel Mr. Syed has strongly opposed the bail application. It has been argued that the applicant is the conspirator, and many cases are there to his discredit. He arranged to have a mobile phone when he was behind the bar and plotted the conspiracy with the main accused. There is remarkable progress in the trial. The applicant was absconding for two years in another State. His acquittal in another case has been impugned before the Supreme Court. The deceased was practising law for the other fraction. Hence, the deceased was deliberately eliminated. It was the motive behind his murder. Hence, the deceased was deliberately eliminated. The trial is on the verge of completion. Due to the terror of the applicant and his gang, one witness Altaf, did not support the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has an apprehension that the other witnesses may be win over. The statement under Sec. 161 of the Cr