1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1592 OF 2009 Krishna s/o Pralhad Chowdhury ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Mr. Naseem R. Shaikh, advocate for the applicant Mr. M.L. Dharashive,APP for respondent-State. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 30TH JULY, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State. 2 This application is filed for regular bail in connection with crime No.184 of 2008 registered with Muktainagar police station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 427 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3 There is no dispute that the present applicant had filed application before this Court, being criminal application No.450 of 2 2009, which came to be rejected by this Court on 27.2.2009. It is also not in dispute that said application was decided after filing of the charge sheet in the matter. It is also not in dispute that the said application was decided on merits. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that after criminal application No. 450 of 2009 was rejected by this Court on 27.2.2009, the applicant had filed second application before the Sessions Court, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No.49 of 2009 for bail. However, the said application also came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 22.4.2009. Learned counsel submits that though, earlier application is rejected by this Court, now, after rejection of earlier application, some development took place more material is placed on record for consideration. Learned counsel further submits that there is no connection between alleged assault by the applicant and cause of death, which has come on record. He further submits that the presence of eye witness at the spot of incident, was not natural. He further submits that there is contradiction in the statements of related witnesses and independent witnesses. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail from last eight months. According to learned counsel, Section 302 is not at all attracted in the present case and at the most ,the case may fall under Section 304(II) of I.P.C. He further submits that one of the accused is died after rejection of earlier bail application. According to learned 3 counsel, there is change in circumstances and therefore, this application for bail deserves for favourable consideration. 5 Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State submits that this is second bail application and there is no change in circumstances. The charge is already framed and the matter was fixed before the trial court for preliminary hearing on 27.7.2009. 6 After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State, I am of the view that there is no change in circumstances. This Court on 27.2.2009 has rejected the application on merits. The relevant extract from para 5 of the said order, reads thus:- “5. After hearing counsel for respective parties and after perusal of the documents placed on record, I am of the considered view that prima facie, from the evidence collected by the prosecution, it appears that the deceased died due to assault by the present applicant. The Sessions Court in para 8 has discussed the medical evidence as well as other evidence and came to the definite conclusion not to release the present applicant”. 7. The concerned Sessions Court, by order dated 22.4.2009 has considered the bail application of the present applicant on merits and given additional reasons for rejecting the said application. 4 8 Since the charge has already framed and the case is fixed for trial, at this stage there is no reason to entertain the second application for bail. Hence, the same is rejected. Since learned APP has reported that charge is framed and date for trial is fixed, it is expected that the trial shall be completed within four months from today. In case, the trial is not completed within four months, the applicant will be at liberty to apply afresh for bail. It is made clear that the applicant or the prosecution as the case may be, shall not ask for any adjournment unless there are exceptional reasons for the same, to the satisfaction of the trial court. 9. Application is disposed of. *****