1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4889 OF 2009 Deepak Ratan Ghaba (Bhanushali) ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.S.V. Marwadi and Ms.Sunita Sharma for the Applicant. Mr.S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 3, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2 The applicant has been arrested under Sections 302, 460 read with Section 34 registered vide C.R.NO.I-352/2007 with Manikpur Police Station. 3 It is alleged that accused no.1 is the son- 2 in-law of the complainant and the deceased and that he had asked the applicant and two other accused to commit robbery at the house of the deceased. Accordingly, the applicant along with two other accused entered the house of the deceased, they gave a gift box and thereafter, gagged her mouth and ran away with gold jewellery and cash from the said house. Because of bandage which was put in her mouth, mother-in-law of accused no.1 died. 4 Counsel for the applicant, firstly, submitted that the applicant was arrested on 12th November, 2007 and thereafter on the same date, recovery at his instance was made and on the same day at 3.55 p.m. he was produced before the Magistrate. He submitted that this itself creates a doubt about the recovery of the said gold ornaments at his instance taking into consideration the limited time which was taken for the disposal of the prosecution and the distance which was allegedly covered by the applicant and the investigation in 3 this case. He further submitted that the entire evidence and the material against the present applicant revolves around the statement of three witnesses Khemraj Bhawarlal Prajapati, Manisha Sunil Ardalkar and Raju Jethva. It is submitted that statement of Khemraj was recorded on 8th November, 2007, statement of Manisha was recorded on 10th November, 2007 and that of Raju was recorded on 10th November, 2007. It is further submitted that though according to the prosecution, identification was held on 26th December, 2007 in which these three persons identified the applicant, in the entire chargesheet, copy of the identification parade was not supplied to the present applicant. Similarly, it is submitted that the name of the Executive Magistrate also is not found in the list of witnesses. Further it is submitted that from the recovery panchanama also, the identity of the applicant was kept secret and as such, there was ample opportunity for the said witness to know the identity of the Magistrate. 4 5 In my view, there is sufficient material on record to show the involvement of the present applicant. All these allegations which are raised by the learned Counsel cannot be taken into consideration at this stage while considering the question of grant of bail. The fact remains that the recovery has been made at the instance of the applicant. 6 The learned APP has submitted that the copy of the identification report, in fact, was tendered along with chargesheet. A copy of the memorandum panchanama is tendered by the learned APP for the State. Thus, at this stage, in my view, taking into consideration the serious allegations which are made against the present applicant, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 7 The applicant is in jail since last two years. I am informed that the charge is likely to be 5 framed on the next date. The learned APP, after taking instructions from the Investigating Officer who is present in the court, has submitted that the prosecution proposes to examined 40-50 witnesses. In my view, therefore, it would be appropriate if the Sessions Court is directed to expeditiously decide the case. The trial accordingly, is expedited. Liberty is given to the applicant to apply if the trial is not over within a reasonable period of time. 8 The application is rejected. In view of the disposal of the application, Criminal Application No.529/2009 does not survive and is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)