jpc ba598-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.598 OF 2011 Mrs. Tabassum Furkhan Shaikh ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Rishi Bhuta, for the applicant Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 13th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Bhuta, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the State, at length. 2. Number of contentions have been raised about the nature of material that is available against the applicant. However, in the view, that I am taking, it is not necessary to discuss or deal with these contentions. 3. The applicant is in custody since 13th February, 2010. The learned APP has pointed out that the previous application for bail filed by the applicant before this Court was withdrawn on 9th august, 2011 (Cri. Application No. 2933 of 2010). jpc ba598-11.sxw 2 4. I am informed that the charge has been framed in September, 2010 itself. Unfortunately, the trial has not commenced. I am in agreement with the learned advocate for the applicant that the trial is being delayed because of the prosecution witnesses and more particularly, the first informant. The trial Court has also granted adjournments without sufficient reasons. 5. Considering the withdrawal of the previous bail application made by the applicant, I am not inclined to release her on bail at this stage. The appropriate course seems to be to expedite the trial. If the trial is not over within the stipulated time, the prayer for bail can be considered. 6. The application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Liberty to apply afresh, if the trial be not over by that time. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)