IMPORTANT POINT
Bail should not be granted arbitrarily; courts must apply established legal principles and consider the seriousness of the charges and the circumstances surrounding the accused.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/first informant, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the respondents/accused.

2. The State and the first informant shall be referred to as 'the prosecution', and the respondent shall be referred to as 'the accused' for convenience.

3. The prosecution has filed Application Nos.18, 17, 11 and 10 of 2021 for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Beed, vide common order dtd. 4/11/2020 below application Exhibit-30 in Sessions Case No.234 of 2019 and Criminal Bail Application No.653 of 2020 in respect of accused No.7, in connection with CR No.192 of 2019 registered with Police Station Georai, for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 352, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

4. The accused had filed the bail application vide Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.533 of 2019. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject their bail application. They approached this Court to seek bail vide B.A.No.1405 of 2019. On hearing the respective counsels, this Court had expressed disinclination to grant bail. Hence, they withdrew the bail application and the application was dismissed as withdrawn as per the order dtd. 7/2/2020. Thereafter, the accused again moved an application for interim bail in view of the decision of the High Power Committee amid Covid-19, for releasing them during the Covid-19 pandemic. It was also rejected. Thereafter again, the aforesaid applications were filed before the learned Sessions Court, and the Court was pleased to release them on bail.

5. As far as accused No.7 Ganesh is concerned, he was absconding for about 17 months. His Bail Application No.653 of 2020 was also allowed.

6. The cancellation of the order granting bail has been sought mainly on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the earlier order rejecting the bail by the learned Sessions Court as well as the High Court. Without assigning any reason for the change in circumstances, bail has been granted by incorrectly observing that filing an application for obtaining permission to take voice samples of two accused is one kind of prolonging the trial as well as keeping the accused behind bars for an uncertain period. The learned Sessions Judge also incorrectly observed that there was no material on record suggestive of the fact that in the event of accused persons being enlarged on bail, they may flee from Justice or may cause harm or dissuade the prosecution witnesses from deposing against them. Freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when the guilt of the accused persons is yet to be proved. He has incorrectly applied the ratio laid down in the case of Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49. He also discussed that it had been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in the crime. However, the above- settled principles deciding the bail application have not been applied in this case.

7. The learned A.P.P. and counsel for the prosecution have vehemently argued that once the bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court or the High Court, unless there are substantial changes in circumstances, no further bail application could be entertained by the same Court. They also vehemently argued that producing the evidence subsequently found to the investigating Officer and making the further investigation is n