jpc ba295-296-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 295 OF 2011 Santu Kashinth Satpute ... Applicant Versus Santosh Rakhmaji Jorvekar and another ... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 296 OF 2011 Santu Kashinth Satpute ... Applicant Versus Dipak Damu Tajanpure and another ... Respondents Mr. M.S. Karnik, for the applicant Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State Mr. Z. M. Avhad, for the respondents in both the applications CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 5th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr Karnik, the learned advocate for the applicant, Mrs. Newton, learned, APP for the State and Mr. Avhad, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 in both the applications. 2. These two applications for cancellation of bail, filed by the original first informant, can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as they relate to the persons, who are accused in the same C.R. 3. Respondent No.1 in these bail applications and four others are the accused in Crime No. I-780/2010, registered at Nashik Road Police jpc ba295-296-11.sxw 2 Station, which is in respect of the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 452, 142, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code as also the offences punishable under the Arms Act. 4. Respondent No.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.295 of 2011 was released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik by her order dated 5/2/2011. Respondent No.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.296 of 2011 was released by another Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 18/2/2011. 5. The first informant feels aggrieved by the grant of bail to the respondents and has, therefore, approached this Court for cancellation of their bail. 6. So far as Respondent No.1, in Criminal Bail Application No. 295 of 2011, is concerned, Mr. Karnik fairly conceded that the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in favour of the said respondent is not liable to be interfered with. As regards the respondent No.1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 296 of 2011, however, Mr. Karnik submits that the order releasing him on bail is not proper. He has drawn my attention to the fact that when the accused -Santosh (respondent No.1 in Cr.Bail Application No. 295/11) was released on bail, the co-accused one Ganesh Tajanpure was not granted bail. It was held by the Sessions Court , at that time, that the case of the said jpc ba295-296-11.sxw 3 Ganesh Tajanpure was different from the case of Santosh Jorvekar and the said Ganesh Tajanpure was not entitled to be released on bail. 7. Mr. Karnik submitted that respondent No.1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 296 of 2011 namely Deepak Damu Tajanpure, stands on the same footing as the said Ganesh Tajanpure. He wanted to discuss the material in the charge sheet suggesting that the role of the said Ganesh Tajanpure, who had already been granted bail and the role of Deepak Tajanpure is on par; and that, therefore, when Ganesh Tajanpure was not granted bail, even Deepak Tajanpure ought not to have been granted bail. 8. In the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to go deeper in the matter and examine the correctness or propriety of the order granting bail to the said Deepak Tajanpure. 9. Mr. Avhad, the leaned Advocate for the respondents, submitted that subsequently, even the co-accused Ganesh Tajanpure has been released by the Court of Sessions. He next submitted that the the charge has already been framed against the said accused persons in Sessions Case No.96 of 2011 and the case has been kept for recording of evidence. 10. I have considered the matter. The three accused to whom jpc ba295-296-11.sxw 4 certainly a greater role than that attributed to the respondents, has been attributed, are already in custody. 11. Considering that the trial can be over within a short time, I think it proper to make the trial time bound, instead of cancelling the bail granted to the respondents. Appropriate conditions can be imposed upon the respondent- Deepak, and also the co-accused Ganesh to ensure that they do not misuse the liberty granted to them. 12. In the circumstances, the applications are rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it within a period of three months from 28th July, 2011 which date is said to be fixed for recording of evidence. 13. Respondent No.1 in Criminal Application No. 296/2011- Deepak Tajanpure and the co-accused Ganesh Tajanpure (who is said to have been released on bail) are directed to report to Nashik Road Police Station, Nashik, every day between 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. till disposal of the case against them. 14. The applications are disposed of accordingly. jpc ba295-296-11.sxw 5 (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)