IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 504/08 Vinod Dhyaneshwar Selokar vs. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 2 nd APRIL, 2008. Heard Shri S.S.Tambulkar, Advocate, for the applicant and Smt. T.D.Khade, A.P.P. for respondent. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The case against the applicant is that the applicant and one another accused (presently in jail) had taken away the deceased from the house and later on he was found in injured condition. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the deceased had died due to head injury, but the Medical Report of the Rural Hospital, Umred, about the medical examination of the deceased is silent about the head injury. He also submits that the deceased was discharged from the Medical Hospital, Nagpur, when he was first examined by the Medical Officer and later on, on the same day he died. It appears from the P.M. report that there was swelling on the head of the deceased. Perhaps the injury on head was not noticed in the Rural Hospital, Umred as well as in the Medical Hospital, Nagpur, when he was first taken there. The case against the present applicant and the other accused who is in jail clearly is that they had taken the deceased on motor-cycle, which was seen by Amol, son of the deceased as well as Chandrakala, wife of the deceased. Thus, there is prima facie clear evidence of eye- witness to show that applicant and the other co-accused had taken the deceased from the house and later on he was immediately found in injured condition and further immediately thereafter he succumbed to injury. No doubt, there is some arguable ground as regards the discrepancy in respect of head injury, which caused the death of the deceased, but then it is a matter of trial. When the applicant and the other co-accused had taken the deceased with them and immediately thereafter he was found with injuries, it is for the applicant to explain as to how these injuries caused. In these circumstances, as the trial is likely to begin in near future, this application cannot be granted. The same is rejected. The above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and shall not influence the trial Judge in any way while deciding the matter on merits. Learned trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial of the accused. Liberty is also granted to the applicant to move for bail if the trial does not begin within a period of three months from today. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Rvj.