1 apln901-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.901 OF 2010 Abdul Ahmed Abdul Rahim Shaikh. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Mohd. Iqbal Y. Solkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 13TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant for his release on bail during pendency of the matter. 2. At this juncture, it must be mentioned that the charge is already framed eight months prior and summonces are already issued against the prosecution witnesses. 3. The applicant is facing the charges punishable under Sections 395, 412 and other allied offences. On 17.12.2008 at midnight three robbers entered the house of the first informant and looted gold ornaments, Nokia mobile handset, 2 apln901-10 set-top box, Maruti car, total value of Rs.6 lakh and odd. Apparently the robbers had covered their faces. However, subsequently the identification of the robbers was done at the police station. From the present applicant, according to the police who is the main accused, there is recovery at his instance, of one golden neckless which he allegedly gave to one Mr.Shetty. Said golden neckless was recovered from the house of Mr.Shetty at the instance of the present applicant. After the incident of robbery/dacoity, present applicant was absconding so also he was involved in another offence and then he was shown arrested in the present matter on transfer warrant. The revolver used by the present applicant in the present matter was recovered when he was arrested in another matter. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that said revolver was a toy revolver and was not genuine weapon. 4. Considering all the relevant facts and the role attributed to the present applicant and mainly his involvement in other offence and mainly considering the 3 apln901-10 factual position that the charge is already framed eight months back, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to release the present applicant on bail. Directions can be given to the concerned Sessions Court which is seized of the matte for expeditious disposal of the case. Hence the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.901 of 2010 for bail stands rejected. [ii] Learned Additional Sessions Judge, who is seized of the matter shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within nine months from receipt of this order. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD 16.apln901-10