1appln-3065-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 3065 of 2010 Rajesh Vinayak Bhoir .. Applicant. vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr Meghashyam Kocharekar, for the Applicant. Mr S. N. Gawade, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 12TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for bail preferred by the applicant, who was initially arrested in connection with C.R. No. 429/1998 registered by Mumbra Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 504, read with section 34 of I.P.Code and was released on bail on the next date. This happened in August, 1998. Thereafter, the matter was pending for trial and for various dates the applicant remained absent. As such, as a last recourse, process was issued against him by the Trial Court by way of issuing non bailable warrant. Said warrant was executed on 5th May, 2010 and the applicant was put under arrest and brought before the Court. He preferred three successive bail applications before the learned Magistrate, seized of the matter. However, all the applications were rejected on the ground that the offence committed by the 2appln-3065-10 applicant, punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C., is provided with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Against such rejection of bail, the applicant approached Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane did not interfere with the observations that the smooth progress of the trial is to be ensured and considering the offence against the accused and considering the past conduct as not to attend the Court, it would not be in the fitness of situation to release him on bail. However, while rejecting the bail application the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane gave directions for disposal of the case, as expeditiously as possible, and till 16.8.2010. Needless to mention that learned Trial Magistrate shall make all endeavour to deal with the matter as per the above directions. 2. Under the above circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the said process and this is not a fit case to enlarge the present applicant on bail when trial is already expedited and in the near proximity it will be put to an end. Hence, the order. ORDER: (a) Bail Application No. 3065/2010 is hereby rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. Application is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J) 3appln-3065-10