1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1593 OF 2011 Ajay Keshav Singh ..Applicant. v/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr. Amit Munde, adv. for the Applicant. Mr. Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 20th December, 2011 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is the second application for bail by the applicant in crime no.77 of 2011 registered at Kharghar police station for the offence punishable under Section 364A IPC. The earlier application for bail was rejected on 1st December, 2010 after going to the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that in spite of directions given by this Court, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears that the accused no.1 Pravin, who was granted bail by the Sessions Court absconded and, therefore, initially there was delay in committing the case to the Court of Sessions. In the earlier order, this Court had directed the learned Magistrate to commit the case if the said accused no.1 Pravin was not arrested. 2 Accordingly, the case was committed, though the accused no.1 Pravin could not be arrested. Case is pending before the Sessions Court for the last about one year. Roznama reveals that the accused no.1 Pravin is still absconding and in spite of notice given to his surety, he could not be produced. It appears that his surety has deposited some amount out of the bond amount and has taken time to pay the balance amount. Therefore, it appears that the possibility of arrest of the accused no.1 Pravin in near future is not certain. Record also reveals that since December, 2010, the present applicant, who is the accused no.2 and the accused no.3, who are in Arthur Road Jail are never produced before the Court. The learned counsel contends that because of this, case could not proceed further. It appears that the applicant and the accused no.3 are in custody for the last about 22 months and the case could not proceed because the accused no. 1 is absconding and also because these two accused persons were never produced from the jail. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant but it would be necessary to give directions to the authorities for early disposal of the matter. 3 Application for bail stands rejected. 4 However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay is hereby directed to expedite the trial of the case and dispose off the same as early as possible and in any case, by the end of March, 2012 and report the same 3 to this Court. The Superintendent, Arthur Road Jail is also hereby directed to produce the accused nos.2 and 3 before the Sessions Court on every date without fail. If he fails to produce the accused persons before the Court on any date and that results in adjournment, the Superintendent of the Arthur Road Jail shall be personally held liable for the same and the action may be taken against him. The learned APP shall inform the Superintendent, Arthur Road Jail about this order. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)