1 (Cri appln 3187 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3187 OF 2010 Amit Ramesh Shitole ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ****** Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for Applicant Mrs.V.R. Bhosale -APP for the State ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 27TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is a third application for bail. The first application was rejected on merits and the second application was also rejected by this Court by order dated 17th February, 2010. 2 (Cri appln 3187 of 2010) 3. The grievance of the Applicant is that in spite of direction given by this Court, the accused was not produced for almost about 40 days in the Sessions Court. It is submitted that the trial has not yet commenced and, therefore, the Applicant has to be kept in the jail as an under trial prisoner. 4. The learned counsel for the Applicant has invited my attention to the first information report. He submitted that the Applicant was 18 years of age when the said incident took place and it is the case of a single blow. 5. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the Inspector of Police attached to the Yerawada Police Station. She submitted that the charge has already been framed on 15th June, 2010. She has also pointed out the explanation given by the Inspector as to why the Applicant was not produced in the Sessions Court. According to the APP, the learned Counsel for the Applicant did not remain present on number of dates. This, however, vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the Applicant by inviting my attention to the Roznama. 3 (Cri appln 3187 of 2010) 6. In my view, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant cannot be accepted. The first application for bail was rejected by this Court on merits. Thereafter direction was granted to the Sessions Court to expedite the trial. Liberty, however, was granted to the Applicant to apply for bail if the trial is not over. Thereafter, the second application for bail was filed which was also rejected by this Court on 17th February, 2010. Since the charge is framed and the trial is likely to begin within a short time, it is not possible to grant bail to the Applicant. The Sessions Court is directed to decide the sessions case expeditiously. Application for bail is, therefore, rejected. (V.M. KANADE J.)