spb/- 1 6-8-1281-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1281 OF 2010 Santosh Mahadev Thorat ... Applicant. (Org.Accused no.6) Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. --- Mr. Vikas Shivankar & Suresh Singh for the Applicant. Mr. J.P.Kharge, APP for the State. ...... WITH CRI. APPLICATION NO. 180 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1281 OF 2010 Santosh Mahadev Thorat ... Applicant. (Org.Accused no.6) Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. AND Sukhdev @ Sukesh Suresh Dangat ... Intervener/Applicant --- Mr. Vikas Shivankar & Suresh Singh for the Applicant. Mr. J.P.Kharge, APP for the State. Mr. S.A.Sawant a/w. Mrs.Gunjaon Shah for the Intervener/Applicant ...... spb/- 2 6-8-1281-10.sxw CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 06TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant-accused and the learned APP for the State as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenor, who filed Cri. Application No.180/2010. 2 This is the third application for bail filed by the Applicant- accused. The first two applications were allowed to be withdrawn. An offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 506(2), 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC and section 37 (1) of the Arms Act has been registered against the applicant and other accused. It is alleged that the applicant and other accused committed murder of Kumar Chandrakant Dangat in a broad daylight. One of the accused fired shots from revolver at the deceased and others accused thereafter, assaulted the deceased with various articles such as sword and scythe etc.. The learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that the name of the first spb/- 3 6-8-1281-10.sxw applicant-accused is not mentioned in the first FIR. It is further submitted that statements of other eye witnesses were recorded on 28.08.2008 and although the remand application is filed on the same day, his name is not mentioned in the remand application as absconding accused. It is further submitted that blood stains were found on the persons of four other accused, but no blood stains were found on the applicant’s clothes. It is further submitted that though trial has commenced in the trial court, the complainant and his associates have committed murder in the court premises and they were arrested by the police and therefore, the trial is not likely to be started in the near future. He submitted that the applicant is in jail since last 23 months as trial prisoner. 3 I have perused the statements of the three eye witnesses who have attributed a definite role to the present applicant. One sword was also recovered at his instance. There were other recoveries which were made at the instance of the present applicant-accused. Taking into consideration seriousness of offence and the manner in which the deceased was murdered, in my view, this is not a fit case spb/- 4 6-8-1281-10.sxw for grant of bail. The trial, however, is expedited. 4 The Sessions Court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year. The trial court shall not influence by any of the observations made by this court while deciding the application. 5 The application for grant of bail is rejected. 6 Intervenor’s Application No. 180 of 2010 is disposed of. [V.M. KANADE, J.]