1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOs.3632/2009 with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3633/2009 with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS.3405/2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3418/2009 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. A.N.Kshirsagar, S.J.Salunke, Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Counsel for the respective applicants. Mr. V.D.Godbharle, APP, for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 14/10/2009 P.C.:- 1. By Criminal Application Nos. 3632/2009 and 3633/2009 the complainant Baburao desires to intervene by assisting learned A.P.P. in the applications moved by Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar ( No. 3405/2009) and also Pandurang s/o Maruti Bhingole (No.3418/2009). As the complainant has a logical grievance in the matter, since he 2 lost his son and another son is virtually crippled, the applications (3632/2009 and 3633/2009) to assist learned A.P.P. are allowed. 2. Heard respective Counsel and learned A.P.P. in Criminal Application Nos. 3405/2009 and 3418/2009. 3. In Crime No.2/2008, registered at Aurad Shahajani Police Station for the offense under Sections 302, 307, 452 and several other Sections of IPC, the accused/applicants Abhimanyu Raosaheb Pawar and Pandurang Maruti Bhingole seek to be released on bail. The Counsel submit, the change of circumstances in the matter is, the trial within nine months is not completed and it is protracted. 4. On account of election of Sarpanch, the rival factions felt enraged and had threatened the group of complainant ( since his 3 daughter in law was elected as a Sarpanch) to face the consequences. On the fateful day, when the complainant, with his family members and two sons was busy in the house, group of other faction, 36 persons, forming an unlawful assembly with common object, associated with deadly weapons, like sword, knife, Jambiya, iron rod, Katti, sticks, barged, challenged complainant. The uproar could not be controlled by the inmates and, consequently, the complainant and his two sons with other relatives came forward. The threat which the accused were pursuing was executed in a capricious and flighty manner pursuant to concert of the unlawful assembly - the son of the complainant Gyandeo (Dnyandeo) was brutally assaulted and was stabbed to death. The role of Abhimanyu is pointed by witnesses Anant, Deelip, Urmila, Sheshrao, Sanjay, vijaykumar, Shahuraj. Accused Abhimanyu was armed with knife, everybody have conveyed so in tune. His name figures in the 4 FIR, though I find, he is a young boy, however, the gravity indicated hereinabove, having been witnessed by at least minimum 12 persons, he does not deserve bail. 5. Now, coming to the role of Pandurang, he was virtually absconding. He was nabbed on 16.6.2008. There are at least 18 witnesses to implicate him with the specific role. He was armed with a sword which he has branded and used in attacking Sanjay. Witnesses have implicated Pandurang about causing injuries to son of the complainant. 6. It was unlawful assembly, every person or member of such unlawful assembly is naturally required under the law to account for the act even if done by other member. Incidentally, in this case, it is not only the other members but the accused Abhimanyu and Pandurang who are instrumental. Non reference of accused Pandurang in the FIR by 5 itself will not be attracting a signal for bail as he has been named by 18 witnesses in their respective statements. 7. I quite see that the trial is not taken in the manner it was so directed and expected. The reasons for the delay need not be attributed to the State or the learned Judge, as on most of the occasions, the seized articles were not produced. On at least 2/3 occasions, the learned Judge was on leave, while on few occasions, the accused on bail moved exemption applications. 8. The learned Judge should have exhausted all possible avenues to complete the trial within the time frame. 9. Now, before the learned Judge, charge is framed. There is already extension for completing the trial. The accused will also discharge their obligation to comply in tune with the mandate of this Court to expeditious hearing. 6 Indeed, an impression is generated, the accused are delaying the trial. No merit. Both the applications rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/3405-09craplgr