jpc 466-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 466 OF 2011 Prashant Suresh Bhosale ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. M. B. Zanwar, for the applicant Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 11th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr, Zanwar, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Newton, the learned APP for the State. 2. On the last date of hearing, it was stated that some other previous criminal cases were pending against the applicant. When it was stated, the learned advocate for the applicant had sought time to address the Court on this issue. Today, it is admitted before me that three cases, one in respect of an offence of rioting with Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, another in respect of an offence of rioting with Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and third one, in respect of an offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, and the offences punishable under the Bombay Police Act and Arms Act, are pending against the applicant. 3. I have gone through the entire charge sheet, a copy of which has been annexded to the bail application. jpc 466-11.sxw 2 4. On 10/11/2010, one Chandrakant Salunkhe was assaulted by three persons. He could not name them and stated that he did not know them previously. On the next day, the said Chandrakant Salunkhe started feeling uneasy and, therefore, got admitted into a Hospital. He died an unnatural death on 30th November, 2010. 5. It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated, in as much as, the victim himself did not know the assailants and the statements of the eye witnesses, on the basis of which the applicant is implicated, have been recorded on 14th November, 2010. It is also submitted that the statement of the son of the deceased- Sandeep- contradicts the version of the victim to the extent that he did not know the assailants, as, according to the son, the victim gave the names of the assailants to him. That, this part of the son's statement is probably not true, can be accepted, but, can be explained by the reasoning that since the son had gathered the information from several other persons about the identity of the assailants, he has incorporated their names in his statement that was recorded during the course of investigation. In fact, this argument does not help the applicant, as according to the son, the victim gave the name of this applicant to the son. However, even if one proceeds on the basis that the victim did not know the names of the assailants still, the identity of the assailants is established by the other persons who were, knowing them, and have given their names. jpc 466-11.sxw 3 6. The delay in recording the statements of eye witnesses is not very significant as the incident was not perceived to be very serious when it took place and it is only when the victim started feeling uneasy, that the incident was thought to be of a graver nature. At this stage, it cannot be accepted that their exists no prima facie case against the applicant. 7. It is contended that the offence would not be one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also contended that, that the applicant gave the fatal blow is not established. Though there is some substance in this contention, the fact remains that the applicant seems to have assaulted the deceased and certainly, it does not appear that the applicant can be said to have committed only a bailable offence. Once this is so, the pendency of the previous criminal cases against the applicant, in which he is on bail, becomes relevant. Since the applicant has apparently assaulted the deceased for no reason, while he was on bail in some other cases, I am not inclined to release him on bail. 8. It is submitted that the applicant has certain personal difficulties and there is nobody to look after his aged mother. The applicant is in custody since November, 2010. In my opinion, in the circumstances, the trial should be ordered to be expedited. The applicant can be permitted to canvass afresh for bail, should the trial jpc 466-11.sxw 4 be not over within the stipulated time. 9. The application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and endeavor to complete it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Liberty to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within that time. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)