IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2841 OF 2009 Shyam Kisan Kamble & anr......... Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. Mahendra Kawchale adv. for the Applicants Mrs. P.P. Shinde APP. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 31st July, 2009. P. C.: 1. This application under sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. Is moved by two applicants, who are accused in Sessions Case no. 187/09 for offence under sec. 395, 506(i) rad with 34 of IPC. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are in custody since last 8/9 months. It is also submitted that though the trial has commenced, the same would take much longer time to conclude. It is also submitted that there is no prima facie case made out against the present applicants to deny them bail. 2. Perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant purchased gold ornaments and was proceeding to some place in Karnatak to deliver the goods. When he was at Hadapsir in Pune the accused had come to the place where the complainant was standing. Granting the request made by the complainant he was provided seat in the car and after sometime he was assaulted and robbed all the goods and the cash so also the mobile. On the basis of the FIR, Sessions case under sec, 395 has been registered. 3. The learned APP has submitted that already the evidence of the complainant is over. It is also pointed out that the trial has commenced within the stipulated time frame as granted y this court in Cr.Application No.1744/09 filed by one of the co-accused. Perusal or the order reveals that the application moved by the co- accused was permitted to be withdrawn and the Sessions Court was directed to commence the trial in six months time and to complete the same expeditiously. It was also observed that if the trial does not commence within six months, the applicant would be at liberty to take out fresh application. The learned APP has pointed out that in compliance of the said order the trial has already commenced and is progressing satisfactorily. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the bail application. The same is rejected, as the trial has already commenced, according to the directions issued by this court. I hope and trust that the Sessions Judge ceased of the case No. 187/09 shall make an endeavor to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same as early as possible. With this direction the application stands rejected. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)