JUDGMENT (ORAL) G.H. Guttal, J - The Applicant is accused of having committed gruesome murder of Hiram an Patil on 7th September, 1989, in village Kalamboli of which he is the Sarpanch. On 18th November. 1989 I rejected his application for bail bearing No. 2537 of 1989 mainly on the basis of apprehension of an eye-witness by name Vithal Patil who made an affidavit and on the basis of written application by about 30 villagers. The Applicant made a second application for bail bearing No. 357 of 1990 on 25/2/1990. He urged that he had filed nomination for the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly which was due to be held on 27th February 1990. I, therefore, partially allowed the application and ordered his release on bail in the sum of Rs. 5.000/- upto 15th March. 1990; but gave him the liberty to apply for extension of bail, if he behaved well during the period he was a free man. In pursuance of the liberty granted by me by the Order dated 21st February 1990, the Applicant Manohar Khanavkar has made this application for bail. 2. The Applicant’s case is two fold: (i) During the period when he was at liberty for the purpose of the elections, he has behaved well and there are no complaints. Therefore, he is not likely to interfere with the course of justice. (ii) On 313/1990 he had to leave his village Kalamboli and come to Bombay for medical treatment for suspected heart disease. He was admitted in Belle-Vue Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. and a renowned Cardiologist Dr. Lulla treated him. He was in the Nursing Home from 5th March, 1990 to 12th March, 1990. Since he continued to complain about chest pain and since Dr. Lulla found that the Applicant suffered from hypertension but apparently there was no heart disease he recommended further investigation. For this purpose he was admitted in Hinduja National Hospital from 1213/1990 to 15/3/1990. The doctors in the Hinduja National Hospital diagnosed his ailment of hypertension and advised treatment. 3. Although this application was made before me on 15th March, 1990, the hearing was postponed to this date to enable the parties to make affidavits to meet the cases urged by each other. The doctors in the Hinduja National Hospital diagnosed his ailment of hypertension and advised treatment. 3. Although this application was made before me on 15th March, 1990, the hearing was postponed to this date to enable the parties to make affidavits to meet the cases urged by each other. Since the period of bail granted by me expired on 15th March, 1990, the Investigating Officer arrested the Applicant from Hinduja National Hospital and took him to Alibag. The Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital, Alibag examined the Applicant and came to the conclusion that the Applicant suffers from angina and hypertension and advised rest and treatment. 4. The Investigating Officer has seriously disputed that the Applicant has behaved well. Three complaints have been relied upon. As I will demonstrate presently, each of these complaints is untrustworthy and ought not to have relied upon by a responsible police officer. Jagannath Shankar Patil by a letter dated 4/3/1990 complained to the police that on 4/3/1990, the Applicant stopped his car on the road and threatened to cut him to pieces if he testified in the case. This application is a fabrication encouraged by the Investigating machinery. The affidavits of Dilip Khanavkar, son of the Applicant who accompanied him to Bombay on 3rd March 1990 and that of R.M. Patankar with whom the father and son lived in Bombay, have not been controverted. They reveal that on 3rd March 1990 both the Applicant and his son arrived in Bombay and lived with R.M. Patankar. This finds support from the endorsement made by the police behind the complaint made by Jagannath Patil. The Inspector of Police who received the complaint from Jagannath made investigation and found that on 3rd March 1990 the Applicant was not found in the village and had left for Bombay. If the Applicant was not near Panvel, he could not have threatened Jagannath. This renders the complaint false. In my opinion, the complaint appears to have been fabricated at the instance of interested persons to prove that Applicant's conduct does not call or his release. I reject this complaint and hold that it is false. 5. The second complaint is in an anonymous letter posted at Panvel on 12th March 1990 and received at Kalamboli on 13th March 1990. The complainant alleges that the Applicant demanded "Hafta" from him and reminded him that he had committed two murders. I reject this complaint and hold that it is false. 5. The second complaint is in an anonymous letter posted at Panvel on 12th March 1990 and received at Kalamboli on 13th March 1990. The complainant alleges that the Applicant demanded "Hafta" from him and reminded him that he had committed two murders. Now, it is accepted even by the Investigating Officer that the Applicant was in Hospital at Bombay between 5/3/1990 and 15/3/1990 because it is from the hospital that the Applicant was arrested. Therefore, this anonymous complaint was clearly concocted by the enemies of the Applicant. It should not have been relied upon by the Investigating Officer who is an Assistant Commissioner of Police especially when they knew that the Applicant was in the hospital when the Applicant is supposed to have threatened the anonymous complainant. 6. The third complaint was made on telephone by a person who stated his name as Parshuram Mohite. The threat issued to Parshuram was not by the Applicant. On his own showing, “A friend of the petitioner" threatened him. Therefore, it was not the Petitioner who threatened Parshuram Mohile. The associates of the Applicant are also in jail. On the date on which Parshuram is supposed to have received the threat on telephone, the Applicant was in Bombay lying in the hospital. There is nothing to show that he inspired his "friend" to issue the threat. Having regard to the previous history of those who are interested in keeping the Applicant in custody, I have no doubt that this complaint has been fabricated for the purpose of this application. 7. In my opinion, all the complaints made and relied upon by the prosecuting machinery are fabricated and false to their knowledge. It is surprising that the Investigating Officer of the status of the Assistant Commissioner should have relied upon the complaints knowing fully-well that at the time when the incidents complained of in the letters are alleged to have occurred, the Applicant was in a hospital in Bombay. It is not the case of the Investigating Officer that he had seen the Applicant near Panvel around the time when the incidents are supposed to have taken place. It appears that the Investigating machinery is determined to keep the Applicant in custody. The Applicant may be a criminal against whom the police have strong case. It is not the case of the Investigating Officer that he had seen the Applicant near Panvel around the time when the incidents are supposed to have taken place. It appears that the Investigating machinery is determined to keep the Applicant in custody. The Applicant may be a criminal against whom the police have strong case. But that is no reason for fabricating the complaints for denying him bail. The opposition to the bail application based on these complaints is not bona fide. I should have appreciated if the prosecuting machinery relied upon the gravity of the crime or any other facts which disentitle the accused to the grant of bail. The fact remains that the prosecution is opposing the application for bail on fabricated material. 8. Then, the question of the Applicant's illness. Having regard to the certificate of Dr. Lulla and the authorities of Hinduja National Hospital which have not been disputed, it appears that the Applicant has not suffered heart attack or has a disease of the heart. No doubt the conditions which can cause heart attack do exist. The evidence about hypertension is unanswerable and has, indeed, not been questioned by the prosecuting machinery. The Government's own Doctor has certified that the Applicant suffers from hypertension and angina. 9. As I have summarised in my Order rejecting the application No. 2537 of 1989, the cases of Bhagirath Singh s/o Mahipat Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat1 and Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. The State of Punjab2 lay down that (i) the liberty of the individual is vital not only for the individual but for the State; (ii) granting of bail should be a rule and refusal should be an exception; (iii) factors like gravity of the crime, the context of the events, the possibility of the accused absconding, a reasonable apprehension that the accused may tamper with the evidence and (iv) the larger interest of the public or the State must inform the Court which is called upon to consider an application for grant of bail. 10. 10. I am not oblivious to the fact that I am called upon to review my First Order on 18th November 1989 in Criminal Application No. 2537 of 1989 by which I had rejected the prayer for bail mainly on the basis of the apprehension of an eye witness by name Vithal Patil who had made an affidavit and on the basis of the written application made by about 30 villagers. But now when I look at the events which occurred subsequently, I realise that the Investigating Machinery is unreasonably opposing the application on the basis of the complaints which have been fabricated. The propensity of the Investigating machinery to encour age and rely upon false and fabricated documents has now come to light in a telling manner. I am afraid, the genuineness of the affidavit of Vithal Patil and the letter by 30 villagers relied upon in Cr. Application No. 2537 of 1989 is now rendered open to question. The approach attitude and effort of the Asstt. Commissioner is unreasonable and vengeful. It is hazardous to trust such an Investigating Officer. 11. It has been urged that no subsequent event justifying a view different from the one in Criminal Application No. 2537 of 1989 has occurred. The first thing that has happened is his illness. Continued hypertension is one of the grounds on which the Applicant relies. This illness is undisputed. But then the learned Public Prosecutor urges that this can be treated in Prison Hospital. The Applicant is in a position to Secure medical treatment of his choice. The public hospitals, being what they are, it is hazardous to drive the Applicant to the treatment in any prison hospital. My judicial experience is that the prison hospitals are incapable of providing the treatment which an accused can receive in a private hospital. I do not see why the Applicant should be compelled to submit himself to inferior type of treatment. 12. The second factor which cannot be lost sight of is that the prosecuting machinery has relied upon the fabricated evidence in the fear that the Applicant may be released on bail. For reasons stated in paragraph 10 the whole effort based on fabricated complaints has rendered the prosecution case based on documents relied on in Criminal Application No. 2537 of 1989 un-trust Worthy. For reasons stated in paragraph 10 the whole effort based on fabricated complaints has rendered the prosecution case based on documents relied on in Criminal Application No. 2537 of 1989 un-trust Worthy. The prosecution has tried to hoodwink the Court by relying upon complaints which are false to their knowledge. If there were any cause for apprehending that the Applicant is likely to tamper with the witnesses, threaten and deter them for testifying at the trial, there should have been a single genuine complaint. There is none. Besides, the Applicant has been prevented from entering into the villages specified in the Order dated 21st February. 1990. 13. For these reasons, I do not think that the Applicant should be denied the liberty any longer. He has been in custody for nearly six months. It has not been pointed out that anyone from the Applicant's side has ever threatened any witness. All that the prosecution could get are the three fabricated complaints. 14. For all these reasons, I make the following order: (i) The Applicant shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. (ii) The Applicant shall not enter the limits of the villages Kalamboli Tembode, Kamotha and Asudgaon in Panvel Taluka, Raigad District. Application allowed 1. (1984) 1 S.C.C. 284 . 2. A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632.