1 (BA 1573 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1573 OF 2011 Balkrishna Prakash Patil ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Mr.D.G. Khamkar for Applicant Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for State Mr.J.S. Kini with Mr. J.M. Puranik for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE: 9th December, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the Original Complainant. 2. This is an application for bail. The Applicant was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 324, 147, 148 r/w.148 & 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that though a direction was given by this Court to the Sessions Court to decide the criminal case expeditiously on or before 2 (BA 1573 of 2011) 31st August, 2011, the trial is still pending and not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has invited my attention to the order passed by this Court dated 14th January, 2011. It is submitted that the Appellant is in jail since 3rd November, 2007. It is submitted that since the direction which was given by this Court was not complied by the Sessions Court and, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. Reliance is placed on the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Guddu @ Vazhool Kamar Sagir Ahmad Khan vs. State through Ulhasnagar Police Station, Ulhasnagar in Criminal Application No. 1761 of 2011 dated 28th November, 2011. Secondly, it is submitted that the Complainant has no right to interfere with this application. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Praveen Malhotra vs. State [1990 CRI.L.J.2184]. 3 (BA 1573 of 2011) 3. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has submitted that the Special Public Prosecutor who is appointed in this case has informed that the case is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2011 and it is going to proceed on day-to-day basis and witness summonses are already issued. He further submitted that on the last date, the advocate for the accused No.1 was not present and it was also reported that accused no.3 is sick and on the request made by the counsel for the accused nos.1 and 3, the matter was adjourned. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant has further invited my attention to the Roznama, which he has annexed to his affidavit in reply. It is submitted that various bail applications are filed by the Applicant from time to time and on that pretext, adjournment is sought from the Trial Court. It was further pointed out that the Applicant herein had asked for extension of time for deciding the criminal case 4 (BA 1573 of 2011) and, accordingly, the Learned Single Judge of this Court has extended the time till March, 2012. 5. In my view, since the statement is made by the learned APP for the Stat that the trial is going to proceed from 12.12.2011 on day-to-day basis, this application cannot be entertained. Further from the record it can be seen that the Applicant has filed as many as 8 applications which all were rejected. From the record, it does appear that the Applicant has taken time on number of occasions, therefore, he cannot seek bail on the ground that the trial is not over though an order was passed by this Court for deciding the case expeditiously. There is no merit, therefore, in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant. Application is rejected. The Applicant shall co-operate with the Trial Court and restrain himself from taking unnecessary adjournments. (V.M. KANADE J.)