SKT 1 21.appln.761.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.761 OF 2010 Rajesh Mohan Chavan .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ..... Mr.C.M.Kothari, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.S.N.Gawade, APP for the State. ..... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : JULY 8th, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the rival submissions at length on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant for release on bail during the pendency of the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 397, 412, 460, 414 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Certain facts of the matter are very peculiar in nature and throw light as to how the delay in finding in accused persons may deteriorate the SKT 2 21.appln.761.10.sxw case so far as the availability of the evidence is concerned. The incident of dacoity with murder took place at Pimpri, Pune on or about 5 th March 2003 at the early hours at about 4.00 a.m. Immediately on the same date of the incident at about 8.00 a.m. the First Information Report was lodged with Cr.No.43 of 2003. The said complaint was lodged by daughter of the victim against the unknown dacoits. Reportedly, initially, there was no trace of any of the dacoits as probably it was the job not of the local people but the robbers/dacoits coming from outside and after the incident fled away leaving no trace. During the investigation, three co-accused could be traced by the police in the year 2004. The present applicant was put under arrest sometime in the month of May 2008 that also after he was found in the similar offence of theft, committed at Devas, Madhya Pradesh. Apparently, when he was arrested at Devas, Madhya Pradesh, during the interrogation, his role in the present matter was revealed by the investigating agency. SKT 3 21.appln.761.10.sxw Maharashtra Police were on watch for absconding accused including the present applicant. Communication was established with Devas Police and relevant information was shared. In the affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police presently attached to the State C.I.D., Maharashtra State, Pune, which is specifically, detailed that at Madhya Pradesh after the arrest of the applicant certain jewelry articles were seized from him and mother of the 1 st informant was called to the concerned police station for the identification and she had identified certain articles and jewelry. Copy of the Identification Memo dated 24 th April 2007 is annexed to the affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. At the end of the said affidavit, a list of 17 Criminal Cases, still pending against the present applicant, is given. Most of the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Two offences including the present offence are punishable under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian SKT 4 21.appln.761.10.sxw Penal Code and even one more offence of Vishram Baug Police Station punishable under Sections 396, 460 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, reportedly, all these 17 cases are still pending and the learned advocate for the applicants did not controvert regarding pendency or at least allegation against the present accused. What is argued on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant belonging to a particular community, the Police have foisted so many cases against him. Considering the number of cases, almost 17 in number, out of them two cases are of dacoity and murder, it must be said that the delayed arrest and delayed finding of any material against the applicant cannot be viewed in such a manner as to give relief of bail to the present applicant, mainly considering the antecedents and also considering his availability during the trial of the almost of these cases including the present one. 3. In the circumstances, though there is an SKT 5 21.appln.761.10.sxw apparent delay in the arrest of the applicant and recovery of articles at his instance, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to enlarge the present applicant on bail during the pendency of the present matter. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Criminal Application No. 761 of 2006 stands rejected. 2. The directions are given to the concerned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter, to expeditiously deal with the same and disposed of the same as early as possible on merits of the case without being influenced by any observations made in the present order so far and the merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)