1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4516 OF 2009 Balaji Damajirao Masalgekar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. RESPONDENT ***** Mr.P. V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel for the applicant. Mr.D. V. Tele, APP for respondent no.1. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 11th January, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri.P. V. Mandlik, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the Shri.D. V. Tele, the learned APP, extensively. 2. The accused in custody in crime No.159/2009 at CIDCO, Nanded Police Station from 22nd August, 2009, seeks enlargement on bail. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the statements of so called eye witnesses are recorded belatedly after two and half months of the incident. The F.I.R. does not show the name of the accused-applicant. No case is pending against the accused-applicant. He is working as civil contractor and he has no nexus with the said crime. He has been falsely roped in the said 2 crime. The charge sheet is filed and the investigation is complete. 2. As against this, the learned APP submits that three eye witnesses have identified the accused. The accused resides in the lane nearby vicinity of the witnesses. Other accused indeed reside in the said vicinity. The witnesses are likely to be influenced by the accused-applicant. 3. The accused earlier moved criminal application no.3355/2009 seeking to enlarge on bail and by order dated 30th September, 2009, his request was negatived on the ground that the investigation is also incomplete and there were statement of Baburao Batalwar, Sow.Vijaya and Shaikh Moula. Prima facie, there is no nexus of the applicant with the alleged incident of eliminating deceased. 4. After filing of the charge sheet, I do not see that, there was any change in the scenario. That apart, completion of investigation by itself will not amount to eliminating the terror looming in the mind of witnesses, which is an aspect against the applicant. 5. It was argued, there is no criminal case is pending against the applicant, the guilt is yet to be proved against the applicant. 6. The eye witnesses have seen the applicant coming from the 3 house of the deceased immediately after commotion and there was exchange of hot words which was heard by the neighbours. 7. At the most, the learned Judge seized with the matter can be directed to expeditiously dispose of the Sessions Case. The bail application rejected. The learned Sessions Judge shall ensure to complete the trial within a year. Needless to add, the accused shall not seek adjournments without any reasonable cause. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE gas/cria4516.09