1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 252 of 2010 [Manik Pandurang Pise Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.R.P. Joshi, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17 th March, 2010. 1. This is second application for regular bail. 2. First application was heard by learned Sessions Court, and two accused persons, namely Pandurang Pise and Khushal Gomaji, were granted bail, while prayer for bail of Pundlik and Manik has been rejected. 3. Accused Pundlik and Manik, therefore, filed Criminal Application No. 2687 of 2009 before this Court, which has also been rejected. 3. Present application is filed by Manik Pise only. 4. Heard. 5. According to the applicant, what had impressed this Court while rejecting the 2 application is that an active role of assaulting the deceased has been attributed to this applicant by witnesses as well as there is circumstantial evidence to show his involvement in the offence. 6. Mainly relying on the statement of witness Raju recorded by police in the process of investigation is the foundation of argument for grant of bail advanced in support of present application. 7. This Court has perused the said statement of Shri Raju. 8. It is seen that its a clear case of circumstantial evidence only. The recovery of dead body and weapon at the behest of accused Pandurang is the situation which has fortified the involvement of the accused. 9. The question as to whether accused is not involved in any manner, and would, therefore, be entitled to bail is inseparable from proof of fact as to his involvement which has to be done in the course of trial. 10. In these circumstances, the applicant does not have a case for grant of bail. 11. At this stage, learned Adv. Mr. R.P. Joshi for the applicant submits that it is a simple case where only ten witnesses are to be examined and it would be appropriate to give a 3 direction for expeditious hearing. 12. This Court is unaware of the work pressure on the learned Sessions Judge, to whom the trial in the present crime is assigned. 13. At this stage, in absence of such information as to pendency of the cases before the learned Sessions Judge concerned, it would not be appropriate to direct hearing on a fixed date within a fixed time. 13. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the applicant to move for early hearing of the case before the Sessions Judge. 14. As this Court has found that the applicant does not have a case for bail, present application is rejected. Judge |Hedau|