1 Criminal Appeal No.1722 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1722 OF 2011 Swapnil S/o.Rohidas Shinde, Age-30 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Kushtadham Road, Savedi, Ahmednagar, Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.B.R.Warma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 30/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is the third attempt made by the applicant to get released on bail, after his earlier two applications were rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.P.P. for State. Perused the contentions raised in the application seeking his release on bail. The present application is filed by the applicant mainly on 3 grounds, first is that he is in jail since 16/03/2010 i.e. from the date of his arrest and the trial is still to commence. Inspite of orders passed by this Court in Cri.Appl.No.4023/2010, dated 2 Criminal Appeal No.1722 of 2011 18/11/2010, preferred by the another accused in the said sessions case, by which the learned Trial Court was directed to expedite the hearing of the session trial and to dispose if of within the stipulated period, it is contended that the trial was not disposed of during the stipulated period, but it is yet to commence. It is further contended that the time was extended, and considering the fact that the charge was framed in the said Sessions Case on 20/06/2011, then in the near future, there are no hopes that the trial will be concluded during the stipulated extended period. It is further contended that wife of the applicant is suffering from cardiac ailment and to bear the expenses for her medical treatment, it is necessary for the applicant to get released on bail. The last contention raised is that the allegations against the applicant as projected in the complaint and the statements of eye witnesses are not supported with medical evidence, which was not considered while rejecting the earlier two bail applications. 3. Considering these contentions raised in the application, learned A.P.P. was instructed to take instructions from the Lower Court about the exact stage of the trial, to which it is stated across the bar that even though certain directions were given by this Court while deciding criminal application no.4023/2010, filed by the co- accused in the sessions trial, and though the time was extended to conclude the hearing after the stipulated period was over, recently only the charge was framed, hence there are no chances that the trial 3 Criminal Appeal No.1722 of 2011 would conclude during the said stipulated period. As earlier two applications were rejected on merit, third application again can not be considered on merit. But the fact, which is brought to the notice of this Court that the applicant is languishing in the jail from last 18 months, is require consideration. The allegations against the present applicant as projected in the complaint and in the statements of eye witnesses certainly contrary to the medical evidence on record. Considering this aspect and as the presence of the applicant is necessary to provide the medical treatment to his wife, application to be allowed on certain conditions. In the premise, following is the order : 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail, on furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to enter in Vaiduwadi, Savedi area of Ahmednagar City till disposal of Sessions Case No.99/2010. 4. Applicant to report Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar on 1st and 15th day of every month till final disposal of Sessions Case No.99/2010. 5. It is made clear that, in case the applicant will commit breach of either of the condition, this bail order will automatically stands dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2011/cri.appl.1722-11