IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 687/2009 (Subodh Bhimrao Dhakade ..vs. State of Maharashtra.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 6 th May, 2009 Heard Shri V.M.Deshpande, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Mandpe, APP, for respondent State. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant along with other accused are being prosecuted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 326 r/w 34 of the I.P.C., as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The case of the applicant for this bail application is that he is arrested long back and trial has not commenced though the charge is framed. It is the fact that other accused are released on bail. However, there are direct allegations against this applicant as regards inflicting knife blow on the deceased and the complainant. The trial court has observed that there are eye witnesses who described the specific role of the applicant. From the statements of the witnesses, prima facie, show that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant which discloses an offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 1441, Gokul Parashram Patil vs. State of Maharashtra that in the present case, as there are injuries on thigh, the offence at the most can be under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. and not under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The P.M. report refers the cause of death thus-- In our opinion, probable cause of death is shock due to blood trauma over chest (Contagion over heart). However, viscera preserved for C.A. and hand over to P.C. The witnesses, including the complainant who is injured are stating about the role of the applicant & as regards possession knife at the time of incident and causing injuries to the deceased. No doubt, the injuries appears to have been caused on thigh and the cause of death is as stated above, the fact remains that the applicant is alleged to have given the knife blows in the said assault. The role of applicant cannot be compared with that of the accused who are released on bail. The trial is pending. It is reported to be fixed for evidence. It is also informed that because of the dilatory tactics of the applicant/accused, the trial could not be held. In these circumstances, even it is assumed for a moment that the offence could be under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C., as the applicant is specifically alleged to have possessed knife and injured the deceased and complainant, it is difficult to grant bail at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to move for bail if the trial does not proceed within a period of three months from today. Learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of this case as early as possible in any case within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order, hearing the same on day to day basis. It is for the learned trial Judge to take coercive steps, if the accused do not cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the case. With this, the application is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. JUDGE Rvjalit