FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRI.APPLICATION NO.3457 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3457 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3457 OF 2008 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Mr.Abhay Kumar Apte, for the applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. DATED: 20.10.2008 DATED: 20.10.2008 DATED: 20.10.2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: Heard Mr.Apte, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Shinde, learned APP, for the State. This application is moved for being released on bail in C.R.No.123 of 2007 of Nephad Police Station, Nashik. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 326, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC. It is on the allegation that the present applicant with his son allegedly assaulted the deceased on 22.11.2007 at 2.30 pm, as a result of which the deceased died on 25.11.2007 in the hospital. There are eight eye-witnesses to the alleged incident including the complainant, who is the son of the deceased. Statements of the eye-witnesses are consistent. They have attributed specific overtact to the present applicant who, according to them, assaulted deceased Trimbak with spade on his head. Injury mentioned in the post-mortem note clearly support ocular version. Mr Apte, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there is a delay in filing the FIR and that there is discrepancy in the history given when the deceased was initially admitted in the private hospital. I have considered both these submissions and, in my opinion, there exists no discrepancy worth considering at this stage. In my opinion, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. However, looking to the age of the applicant, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. While rejecting this application, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)