1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 55 OF 2009 (Ravindra HiralalShende v. The St. of Mah. & anr.) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's order or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Mr. A.A. Naik Advocate for Applicant. Mr. D.B. Patel, APP, for Res. ---- Coram : A.B. Chaudhari, J. Date : 05th March, 2009. ... This revision is directed against the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, by which the said Court had cancelled the bail granted to the applicant. 2. In support of the application, Mr.A.A. Naik, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that the statements of the witnesses clearly show that deceased Sapna was following the girl Minakshi, who is an eye witness, and when she came near the Tractor which was driven by the applicant, her bicycle dashed with the trolley and she came under the wheel of the tractor. According to him, at the most, this is a case of rash and negligent driving and not of murder. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 2 3. Per contra, Mr.Patel, learned APP, opposed the revision and supported the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the statements of witnesses which are filed with the revision. The statement of Minakshi Shende clearly shows that the applicant was after Sapna and was harassing her though she was never responding to him. Not only that, on the fateful day, the applicant stopped the tractor and caught hold of hands of Sapna. Sapna somehow got herself relieved and started going on bicycle. The enraged applicant deliberately drove the tractor on her bicycle and dashed her, with the result she came under the wheel of the tractor. Her head was crushed and she died. The applicant did not stop and went away with his tractor. This is nothing but a brutal murder. Other witnesses have supported the version of Minakshi. 5. It appears from para 9 of the impugned order that witness Minakshi was offered money to change her version. There is every likelihood of Minakshi and other witnesses being influenced by the applicant. In that view of the matter, I make the following order. 6. Revision Application is rejected. Learned counsel states that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the trial Court and that the trial should be expedited. In my view, since the charge-sheet has been filed, trial Court is directed 3 to decide the Sessions case within a period of six months from today. 7. The trial Court is directed to hold the trial in camera. P.S.O. Police station Keshori, district Gondia, is directed to provide a woman constable for security of Minakshi and to provide her complete witness protection. Trial Court is directed to oversee this arrangement of witness protection. P.S.O. P.S. Keshori is further directed to provide protection to all other witnesses. Superintendent of Police, Gondia, is directed to supervise the witness protection to the witnesses in the instant case. JUDGE /TA/