BA-969-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.969 OF 2011 Ashok Chandra Sippy ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Mahim Police Station, Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. Ashish Bardeskar for the Applicant. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 20 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the F.I.R. and the copies of other documents that are annexed to the Bail Application. 3. The Applicant is alleged to have murdered one Narayan Thadani, who was of 81 years and was, admittedly, suffering from some ailments. He is said to have died an unnatural death on 29th December, 2010. 4. The first contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the Applicant is that, initially, the case was registered only in respect of an offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. According to him, the substitution of a charge of an BA-969-11.sxw 2 Dixit offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, as has been done thereafter, is not proper or legal. 5. I have considered the matter. It appears that the death has been opined to be unnatural on carrying out the post-mortem examination on the dead body. Apparently, there were about eight injuries on the dead body. 6. It is next contended by the learned Advocate for the Applicant that the First Informant had no knowledge of any facts, and that the allegations made by him are not supported by any material collected during the investigation. Indeed, the First Informant does not have any personal knowledge of any wrongful act, allegedly, committed by the Applicant. However, the case against the Applicant is based on suspicion. There is sufficient material to indicate that the Applicant was staying in the same room where the deceased was staying. In fact, this aspect of the matter is not disputed at all. It also appears that there were some ante-mortem injuries on the dead body. It also appears that there is some basis for claiming that no prompt steps of calling any Doctor and ensuring medical treatment to be given to the deceased were taken by the Applicant. 7. Since the Applicant was residing with the deceased and since he was seen in the room where the deceased was residing, the Applicant can be legitimately suspected for having assaulted the deceased in the absence of any satisfactory explanation in respect of such injuries from the Applicant. Whether the absence of any explanation by the Applicant would be sufficient to establish his guilt, and whether the offence, if any, allegedly committed by the Applicant would amount to murder, cannot be decided at this stage. BA-969-11.sxw 3 Dixit 8. Since the suspicion felt against the Applicant cannot be said to be unreasonable, or not borne out from the material collected during investigation, I am not inclined to release him on bail. 9. However, I deem it fit to direct the trial to be expeditiously held. I am informed that the matter has already been kept for framing of charge on 22nd July, 2011. 10. The Bail Application is rejected. 11. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it within a period of three months from 22nd July, 2011. 12. Liberty to the Applicant to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within that time. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]