sat 1 bail appln. 1745-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1745 OF 2011 Sanjay Govind Paradkar ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Ms.Anjal Patil for the Applicant. Ms.Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. NOVEMBER 24, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Heard learned Advocate Ms.Anjali Patil for the applicant and learned APP Ms.Geeta Mulekar for the State. 2 It appears that the whole case is based on the evidence of two to three witnesses. Chargesheet has already been filed at Andheri Court. Considering the nature of evidence which the prosecution may adduce before the trial court, the whole trial should not take more than two days. I am of the view that instead of granting bail, it will be just and fair to direct the Magistrate to frame sat 2 bail appln. 1745-2011 the charge and hear the matter on day to day basis. 3 The applicant is resident of Amaravati. Learned Advocate Ms.Anjali Patil has not been able to produce any documents to show as to for what purpose the applicant has been staying at Mumbai for last more than 10 years. At this stage, I am informed that he is involved in another five serious offences. 4 No case is made out for grant of bail. As already stated, the trial needs to be taken up with immediate effect. Hence, I pass the following order :- The application is rejected. The trial Magistrate is directed to frame the charge, if any is made out against the applicant on next date of hearing. Within next three days, he shall start recording the evidence. The case shall be heard on day to day basis and shall be finished within fifteen days from the date of framing of charge. It is made clear that sat 3 bail appln. 1745-2011 the learned Magistrate shall not apply for extension of time unless there are compelling circumstances. The prosecution shall co-operate to secure attendance of the witnesses. 5 The application stands disposed of. Issuance of writ be expedited. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)