1appln-3295-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 3295 of 2010 Dashrath Ganpat Meghwale .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr D. G. Bist , for the Applicant. Mrs A. S. Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. ----- CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 3RD AUGUST, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application preferred by the applicant for regular bail in connection with C.R. No.I-20/2009 registered by Vikramgad Police Station, Thane for the offence punishable under Sections 2appln-3295-10 395, 397, 341, 427 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The incident of alleged dacoity with attempt to cause grievous hurt occurred in broad day light at about 8:15 a.m. on 1.5.2009. Allegations are that when the complainant was proceeding on his motorcycle from Vikramgad to his village, he was accosted by seven/eight persons, including the present applicant, and he was assaulted by means of stone and his clothes were also torn. Cash amount of Rs.8,500 was robbed from him. His gold chain was snatched by one of the accused. Immediately, within two hours the complaint was lodged with Vikramgad Police Station. However, initially there was no arrest. Present applicant was arrested on or about 4.1.2010 and was remanded to judicial custody. Till today he is in custody. 3. Specifically name of the present applicant along with other co-accused is mentioned in the F.I.R. and also in the statements of more than four / five witnesses. During the argument, learned Advocate for the applicant brought to the notice of the Court further statements, specifically, of two witnesses by name Ishwar Parshuram Jadhav and Kalpesh Gopal Mahale. Their earlier statements were recorded immediately on the next date of the 3appln-3295-10 incident i.e. on 2.5.2009 implicate the present applicant and co- accused by taking their specific names. However, their subsequently statements recorded on 18.11.2009 do not implicate the applicant, as according to the said witnesses the assailants were known persons to him, however, he had no knowledge regarding their names. 4. Counter to the above factual position brought to the notice of the Court, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that other witnesses by names Madhuraja Birari and Vishnu Dhavlu Kurkute, similarly implicate the applicant along with co-accused in the statements recorded on 2.5.2009 and also in the statements subsequently recorded on 4.9.2009. All the same, apparently, in the present matter prima facie there are eye- witnesses, who are taking the name of the present applicant along with co-accused. Admittedly, out of seven accused persons six are still absconding and only present applicant is arrested and charge-sheet is filed. 5. Under the above circumstances, it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant bail to the present applicant when the matter is seized of the by the Sessions Court and it can be 4appln-3295-10 ....4th disposed of as expeditiously as possible by giving suitable directions to the learned Sessions/Trial Court. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Bail application is rejected. (b) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane who is seized of the matter shall dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. (c) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. Application is disposed of accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI,J) LRS-PA 5appln-3295-10