1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1838 OF 2010 (Vasant Punjaji Bodakhe .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 07TH DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 221/2008 registered with the Police Station, Risod, District Washim. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that this the third round of applicant for approaching this Court for seeking his release on bail. Learned Counsel invites my attention to the order passed by this Court on 10th August, 2010. While deciding the said application, this Court has observed thus :- “... Despite order passed by this Court while rejecting earlier bail application by this applicant, one year has lapsed. Since 6th August, 2009, there is no commencement of the sessions trial, although the trial Court was expected to hear the case as early as possible. Under these circumstances, I direct learned trial Judge concerned with this case dispose Sessions Trial No. 16/2009 within a period of three months from the date of this order, failing which the learned trial Judge shall release the applicant upon conditional bail on his own satisfaction. Application disposed of accordingly.” Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that as there was no progress in the trial, the applicant has approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge by moving an application and the same was rejected by an order dated 12.11.2010. He 2 submits that while rejecting the application, the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the order passed by this Court dated 10th August, 2010. He further submits that the learned Sessions Court has erroneously observed that the delay caused because of the non cooperation of the applicant. The other ground for rejecting the application is that the other accused were not produced before the Court by the prosecuting agency. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in fact, for both the grounds the applicant was not responsible. He further submits that the property was sent to Chemical Analyser on 28.05.2009 and the report was received by the Police Station on 02.07.2009. The report was filed on 14.10.2010 i.e. after lapse of nearly one year and three months. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that these events surely were not within the control of the applicant and the government agency is responsible for the same. The delay caused cannot be attributed to the applicant. These are the matters which are not in the hands of the applicant and the prosecuting agency is expected to take care of those formalities. He further submits that apart from these facts, on merits also, there is no case against the applicant in view of the CA report received recently, which shows that the results are inconclusive. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that taking overall view of the matter, it can be seen that the applicant who is behind the bars for the period of more than two years and even today there is no progress in the trial and as such keeping the applicant behind the bars for such indefinite period would not be less than a pre trial conviction. He further submits that even on humanitarian ground, the applicant who is 62 years of age and looking to the age of the applicant, there is every possibility that he may face health problem at this advance stage. He further submits that in view of the order of this Court dated 10th August, 2010, it was expected from the learned Sessions Judge to consider the matter in view of the direction of this Court and the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error by considering the matter with hyper 3 technical view. Learned APP has filed reply and opposed the application. He submits that on considering the material before the learned Sessions Judge, he rightly rejected the application and submits that the instant application be rejected. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and on perusal of the material placed before me, I am of the opinion that the delay caused in commencing the trial cannot be attributed solely to the applicant. It is also not in dispute that the other accused are released on bail. The fact that the trial is not yet commenced is not disputed by the learned APP. In view of this fact, I am of the opinion that the case is made out by the applicant. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, on the following conditions. (i) The applicant to attend the Court on every date. (ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor commit any act such as contacting the prosecution witnesses or pressurize them. (iii) The applicant to submit his residential address and his contact numbers such as phone/mobile numbers to the investigating agency. (iv) In case the applicant is moving out of the area of Police Station, Risod, District Washim, he shall inform the Police Station about his visit to other place. In case of breach of these conditions, the prosecution agency to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law. JUDGE *rrg.