IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1402/2007 Riyazkhan Sardarkhan.vs.. State of Maharashtra Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Courts or Judge's Orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S. R. Dongaonkar, J. Dated : 28/01/2008 Heard Mr. R. M. Daga learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A. S. Fulzele, learned A. P. P. for respondent-State. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail. The accused is being prosecuted for the offences under M. C. O. C. Act in Special Case No. 1/2005 before the Special Judge, M. C. O. C. Court, Nagpur. It is alleged that he has committed offences under Section 3(4) of M. C. O. C. Act in Crime No. 3188/2004. The learned counsel for the applicant has strongly relied on the observations of the Apex Court, reported in 2007(4) Crimes 114(SC) Jaya Simha .vs.. State of Karnataka, wherein in paragraph 7, following are observations : “The appellant has already been in Jail for about three years and nine months. Charges were famed only in August, 2006. It is stated that 256 witnesses have been cited. The trial has not been completed. It is stated that it is likely to take a long time for completion. We have already directed Nanjappa against whom similar accusations are made, to be released on bail ( vide order dated 17.4.2007 in Nanjappa vs Union of India, (Criminal Appeal No. 574/2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6030/2007). Having regard to the nature of involvement alleged and the role attributed to the appellant, and the period already spent by the appellant in Jail, we find it a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant.” In the present case, it is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that accused has been arrested on 7/8/2004 since then he is in jail and the trial is yet to commence. The learned A. P. P. while opposing the bail application has contended that the trial of the applicant is likely to begin as the matter is fixed on 30th January for framing of charge. It appears that two co-accused have been released on bail by the trial Court and one the accused is released by the Juvenile Justice Board. Without going into the question of parity of this accused, with the accused, who have been released on bail, I find that the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007(4) Crimes 114(SC) Jaya Simha .vs.. State of Karnataka, would be attracted. The accused appears to be in Jail since three and half years and his trial is yet to begin. It is stated that about 100 witness have been cited as prosecution witnesses and the trial would be concluded within six month, but that appears to be not possible. The learned APP has opposed the application saying that the applicant is facing about 11 cases. To which, learned counsel for the applicant has countered saying that in two of the cases, he has been acquitted. Nodoubt, some cases are pending against the applicant but the fact that he has been released on bail in those cases against which prosecution has not applied for cancellation of bail, can not be over looked. In the circumstances of the cases, though it is pointed by the learned APP that the case of the accused, who have been released on bail by the trial Judge as well as by the Juvenile Justice Board, stands on different footings, the fact that principles observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, are attracted, would go to show that the applicant can not be denied bail. However, as he is facing some cases, bail will be subject to conditions. 1. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surely and PRB of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge, subject to condition that he shall report P. S. Sakkardara on every Sunday between 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. until further orders. 2. He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witness and shall attend the trial regularly and shall not commit any offence in future. It is made clear that if any offence is committed by the applicant, the respondent may move an application for cancellation of bail. Bail in trial court. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE JSA.