jpc ba515-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 515 OF 2011 Mr. Bipin Deviprasad Pandey ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ... Respondents Mr. Nevili Deboo a/w Mr. Divakr Rai i/by Mr. Ramesh R. Mishra & Mr. S. B. Suchdeo for the applicant Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 1st July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Neveli Deboo for the applicant and Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP for the State. 2. I have gone through the bail application and the annexures thereto. 3. On 1/10/2010 the First Informant, who was, at the material time, attached to Dharavi Police Station as Police Sub Inspector, received a message from Sion Hospital that an injured had been brought to the said Hospital but was found to be dead before admission. The dead body had been taken to Sion Hospital by one Police Head Constable- Shri Muthe- on the basis of the message received from the Police Control Room. 4. Since the death appeared to be unnatural and homicidal, a case in respect of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown person was registered. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the deceased had been assaulted by the applicant by means jpc ba515-11.sxw 2 of a 'bamboo'. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Neveli that the statements of the eye witnesses have been recorded, much subsequently. While it is true, considering the social position and status of the deceased, probably there was nobody to follow up the matter and therefore, the investigation was not done very promptly or expeditiously. At this stage, therefore, there is no basis for presuming that the statements of the persons that came to be recorded in the course of investigation do not reflect the facts properly, merely because they have not been recorded promptly. These persons do not appear to be interested persons. Thus, one has to proceed on the footing that the applicant indeed assaulted the deceased by a 'bamboo'. 6. It is next contented by Mr. Neveli Deboo that considering the nature and size of the bamboo which is said to have been recovered in the course of investigation, no intention or knowledge, requisite for the offence of murder, can be attributed to the applicant. While, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no intention to cause death of the deceased can be attributed to the applicant, whether or not the requisite knowledge can be attributed to the applicant would be a question that would need determination during the trial. Though there may be substance in the contention advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant to the extent that as to what offence, the applicant can be said to have committed, is debatable and though it is possible that the applicant may be said to have committed a lesser offence than that of murder; the fact remains that, that the applicant assaulted the deceased and jpc ba515-11.sxw 3 the deceased appears to have died as a result of the assault, cannot be doubted at this stage.In the circumstances, the position of the applicant, his character and his antecedents become relevant for the purpose of consideration of bail. 7. I am told that there are as many as nine criminal cases, pending against the applicant and some of them are for the offences punishable under Section 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the applicant appears to have committed the offence in question while he was on bail in some other previous cases. Once such is the position and when, in this case, the applicant cannot be said to have committed only a bailable offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. In the circumstances, however, it would be proper to expedite the trial. 8. The application is rejected. 9. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and 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 by that time. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)