jpc apl554-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 554 OF 2011 Ashok Lakhumal Wadhawa ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. I. S. Thakur i/by M/s Global Consults for the applicant Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State Mr. S. H. Joshi- for intervenor CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 19th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Thakur, the learned advocate for the applicant, Mrs.Newton, the learned APP for the State, and Mr. Joshi, the learned advocate for the first informant. 2. While releasing the applicant on bail, by the order dated 25th August, 2010, this Court (Coram: R. C. Chavan, J.) imposed a condition upon the applicant that he shall keep himself away from Thane district till the trial is over and that he shall enter Thane district only for attending the trial and only on the dates of such trial, and that, he shall promptly leave the limits of Thane district after the hearing of that date would be over. 3. The applicant has abided by the said condition for sufficiently long jpc apl554-11.sxw 2 time and is now seeking relaxation of the said condition on various grounds, such as his ill health and other personal difficulties faced by him. 4. Mr. Joshi, the learned advocate for the first informant who has been permitted to oppose this application, states that the present application should not be entertained because the order granting bail is under challenge before the Supreme Court of India. He pointed out that since the very issue of propriety of grant of bail is pending before the Supreme Court, the application for relaxation of condition imposed while releasing on bail, may not be entertained. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Kishor Bhikansingh Rajput Vs. Preet Kishor Rajput, reported in 2007 (3)Bom.C.R.279. 5. I find that the Special Leave Petition challenging the grant of bail to the applicant has been filed as back as on 18th October, 2010. The matter, it appears, was listed for hearing on few occasions, but has not been heard. No stay of the order granting bail was attempted to be obtained from the Supreme Court. I do not think that merely because the petition challenging the grant of bail to the applicant has been filed and is pending before the Supreme Court, this court is precluded from considering the present application. 6. Mr. Thakur, the learned advocate for the applicant has drawn my attention to the bail order passed by this Court, and more particularly jpc apl554-11.sxw 3 paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9 thereof, to show the nature of allegation against the applicant and the material that is available to support the allegation. In the circumstances, I do not wish to discuss that aspect of the matter. What needs to be observed, however, is that the applicant was in custody for a period of about two years and eight months, before he was released on bail. Even after his release on bail, he has kept himself away from Thane district as per the condition imposed by this Court, for a period of 10 months. It cannot be suggested that keeping himself away from his residence and place of work has not been causing hardship to the applicant. 7. I am informed that about 33 witnesses are yet to be examined during the trial. This means that the trial Court cannot be expected to be over within a short time. It would be, therefore, unreasonable to stipulate that the applicant must keep himself out of Thane district i.e. his place of residence and the place of work, till the trial would be over, which may even take couple of years. 8. Since, in the course of argument, it was suggested by the learned APP that all the 33 witnesses may not be examined and a faint suggestion was given that the trial may be over within a short time, I had specifically asked the learned advocate for the applicant as to whether, if the applicant is asked to keep himself away only from the jpc apl554-11.sxw 4 area within the local limits of Ullhasngar Municipal corporation, that would reduce his difficulties to certain extent. 9. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, in my opinion, it would be proper to relax the condition to some extent and reconsider the matter for further relaxation, should the trial be not over within a reasonable time. 10. The application is partly allowed. 11. The condition requiring the applicant to keep himself away from Thane district till the trial would be over is modified as follows: "The applicant shall keep himself away from the area under the control of Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, and shall not enter the local limits thereof". 12. Save and except as aforesaid, no other modification in the original bail order. 13. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and endeavour to complete it within a period of six months from today. 14. Liberty to apply afresh for relaxation or further modification of the condition, should the trial be not over by that time. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)