1 Cri.W.P.No.15/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.15 OF 2009 Kansubh S. Kokane ...Petitioner. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, adv., for the petitioner. Smt..A.A.Mane, APP for the respondent no.1/State. Shri P.D.Pise, adv. For the Respondent No.2. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 3rd August, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the report lodged by the present petitioner, Miraj City police station had registered Crime No.78/08 under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The respondent no.2, who was one of the accused was arrested. While granting bail, condition was imposed that he would not travel abroad. Later on, he made an application for relaxation of the condition on the ground that his father had died and his dead body was lying in the mortuary for four months. At the time of hearing of that application, the learned APP made a statement that chargesheet would be filed within eight days and thereafter, trial could be concluded within three weeks. On the basis of that statement, application of the accused/respondent no.2 for 2 Cri.W.P.No.15/09 relaxation of the condition not to travel abroad was rejected but the prosecution was directed to file charge-sheet within eight days and to complete the trial within three weeks. The order directing to file charge- sheet and conclude trial within specified period is challenged by the original complainant/first informant. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court could not have passed such a order directing the police to file chargesheet within eight days. It appears that the Court passed that order on the basis of statement made by the prosecution that it would file chargesheet within eight days, therefore, no illegality can be found in that order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are several accused in the matter and they are not yet arrested. He admits that most of the accused persons are foreigners and they are not available. The respondent no.2 is also Nigerian and had opened the office in India to offer employment opportunities abroad to the Indians. If other accused are not living in India and police are unable to arrest them, case against the respondent no.2 need not be kept pending for a long period till the arrest of the other accused persons. In fact, when the charge-sheet is filed against the respondent no.2 and other accused are shown absconding, as and when those absconding accused are arrested, police can file separate 3 Cri.W.P.No.15/09 chargesheet against them. On this ground also, no objection could be taken to filing of the chargesheet within specified period. It appears that in the present petition, stay to the said order was granted on 13th January, 2009 and as a result, in spite of the fact that chargesheet is already filed, trial could not proceed. Even if the period of three weeks would be too short to complete the trial, petitioner had no reasons to come to this Court seeking stay to the trial. 3 For the aforesaid reasons, petition stands dismissed. The J.M.F.C., Miraj shall proceed with the trial and dispose off the R.C.C.No. 357/2008, preferably within three months from the communication of this order. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4 Cri.W.P.No.15/09