1 BA-1023.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1023 OF 2011 {For Bail} Khandu @ Khandya Amarnath Lonkar .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Subhash Jha i/b S.P. Hulyalkar for the Applicant. Ms M.R. Tidke, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for bail by a person whose previous bail application was rejected on 9-9-2010. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on two Judgments of the Supreme Court. 2. In Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 9 SCC 443, the Supreme Court found that the appellant therein was in jail from 4-4-1998 in connection with a similar offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The Court observed that, it was quite a long 2 BA-1023.11 period that he was in custody without commencing the trial and that therefore there was no need to detain him further in custody and therefore the Supreme Court released him on bail, notwithstanding the suppression of certain factual position when the bail application was filed, since the Supreme Court found that it may be a lapse on the part of the counsel. Now whether period of detention in custody is long or short would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Had it been the desire of the Supreme Court to lay down a fixed period after which a person should be bailed out, the Court would have done so. The Legislature, too, would have said that in an offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, a person may be bailed out if he is in jail for two years without trial. Therefore, no rule of a binding nature need be elicited from the Judgment on which reliance is placed. 3. In Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2001-Crimes (SC)-3-410, it seems that the order came to be passed because the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted that in case the Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant, he must be subjected to stringent 3 BA-1023.11 conditions. This may have persuaded the Supreme Court to grant bail. 4. There can be no doubt that persons languishing in jail without trial is not good for the system's health but then the learned trial Judge would undoubtedly take up the case of the applicant for hearing having due regard to older cases of under-trial prisoners who are languishing in jail for a period longer than the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge would ensure that there is proper distribution of pending cases amongst the Additional Sessions Judges so that cases of under-trial prisoners do not languish. 5. The learned APP states that the applicant has to his discredit several offences concerning property and some offences of robbery and dacoity. Considering this, the applicant is not entitled to bail. The application is, therefore, rejected. 6. The learned trial Judge would expedite the hearing of the case. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)