IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2233 OF 2009 Jalindar Ghamaji Gavare ..... ..... ...Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... ..... ...Respondent. Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar i/by Pranali Kakade, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 21st August, 2009. PC: This is an application filed by the husband under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. The offence under section 302, 498A read with section 34 of IPC has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused. The other co-accused are already released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed and as the applicant is in custody since November, 2008 the applicant be released on bail. The incident in question had taken place at about 7.00/7.30 p.m. in the evening at the residence of the applicant when the applicant was at home. He had made a phone call to one of the witnesses and informed that the deceased is unconscious and hence need to be removed to hospital. When the witness by name Shekhar reached the residence of the applicant along with Tata Sumo jeep, strangely enough the applicant and his brother were not to be found at home. With the help of other female members the deceased was lifted and put in the jeep and taken initially to Dr.Shekhar Malekar’s hospital/dispensary. The said doctor examined the patient and advised that she be immediately removed to Birla hospital or some other well equipped hospital. When she was taken to Birla hospital she was given some treatment. However she was 1 declared dead by about 9.45 p.m. In this fact situation learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant did attempt to save life of the deceased by making phone call and this circumstance by itself is sufficient to release the applicant on bail. Per contra, learned APP has pointed out that death is homicidal and on account of strangulation when the applicant was at home and he was aware about the serious condition of the deceased when he telephoned. However his absence is conspicuous thereafter when persons with vehicle reached the residence of the applicant. Perused the statement of the witnesses and other documents forming part of charge sheet. In my view there is enough material on record though in the form of circumstances to connect the applicant with the crime. In my opinion, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. In the result bail application is rejected. However having regard to the fact that the applicant is in custody since November, 2008 I deem it appropriate to direct the Sessions Judge to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from today. Applicant to communicate this order to the Sessions Court. 21.8.2009. 2