1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3794 OF 2009 Raju Ramji Viswakarma .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mr. N.K. Sharma for the applicant. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Applicant has been arrested in connection with the the FIR No.00/2008 registered in Shikrapur Police Station under sections 302, 397, 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the applicant was working as a cleaner and that he had killed the driver of the truck and had sold iron pipes which were being transported on the said truck. 2 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that there are several discrepancies and lacunae in the prosecution case. He submitted that no test identification parade has been held. He further submitted that the sketch prepared by one of the eye witnesses does not tally with the appearance of the present applicant. He submitted that in the FIR no reference is made by the complainant about the cleaner accompanying the driver. He submitted that, initially, complaint was filed against the driver vide FIR No.I-599/2008 under section 407 of the Indian Penal Code and, later on, the dead body of driver was found near Shikrapur. He submitted that, therefore, taking into consideration the various discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. The learned APP, on the other hand, invited my attention to the affidavit dated 23 rd November, 2009 filed by the prosecution in which various circumstances against the applicant have been mentioned in para 7. 5. Taking into consideration the circumstances which are referred to in para 7 of the affidavit in reply of the prosecution, in my view, no case is made out for grant of bail 3 against the present applicant. 6. Application for bail is, therefore, rejected. Trial, however, is expedited. The Sessions Court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within six months. Liberty is granted to the applicant to apply for bail if the trial is not over within six months. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)