IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4029 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4029 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4029 OF 2007 Nannath Ramesh Khandve ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms.Pranali Kakade i/b.Subhash Hulyakar for the Applicant Ms.Alpa Jhaveri for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 6th May, 2008. DATED : 6th May, 2008. DATED : 6th May, 2008. P.C. 1. The applicant is arrested in connection with C.R.No.217 of 2007 of Dehu Road Police Station. FIR is filed by Mrs.Vijaya Anand Katke, wife of Anand, victim of the occurrence. The incident is said to have taken place in the morning of 16th August, 2008. The victim is still in hospital since after the day of the incidence and this court is informed that the victim is unconscious and he is unable to render his statement. 2. In the course of investigation two persons namely Mr. Raj Kamble and Mr.Suresh Kamble have -2- stated that in the morning of 16th August, 2007 at about 110.45 a.m. the applicant is said to have kept the motor cycle under a neem tree which was standing near the tea stall of these two persons and that the applicant is said to have gone away with the White Maruti Car No.MH 14-AM-3519. The panchanama with regard to seizure of the aforesaid Maruti Car dated 16th August, 2007 goes to show that the said car was owned by the victim i.e. Anand Katke. The statement of these two persons namely Mr.Raj Kamble and Suresh Kamble do indicate that soon after the occurrence the applicant was found with the car of the victim Mr. Anand Katke. In the course of investigation under panchanama the clothes of the applicant came to be seized under panchanama dated 29th August, 2007 and the shirt then found to be on the person of the accused was found to be seized with blood stains. The shirt has been sent to the C.A. and as on today the report of the C.A. is awaited. In addition to that one finds statement of Ms. Lalita Shankar Nalage who appears to be the mother in law of the present applicant, and she has rendered statement that the applicant had a motor cycle bearing No.MH 14-Z-123 and that the applicant had changed the -3- number of the motorcycle to MH-14-Z-183. This is something which is strange on the background of the allegations that at the relevant time the applicant had kept the motorcycle opposite the tea stall run by Kamble and had gone away by the maruti car. 3. Learned Advocate Ms.Kakade relied upon the judgment that as the chargesheet is filed the detention of the applicant is not required during in the normal course after the filing of chargesheet. The filing of chargesheet is circumstance which is considered in favour of the applicant. At the same time, I am inclined to observe that merely because the chargesheet is filed cannot be a ground to release the applicant. Merits of the case atleast with reference to making out prima facie case are required to be seen while deciding the application. Finding of the present applicant in possession of the car of the victim on the very day of incident is something that is clearly against the applicant. Even otherwise the blood sample report is yet to be received. If the applicant was innocent there was no reason for finding of the blood on the clothes of the applicant. The clothes have been recovered from -4- the residence of the applicant. 4. Apart from the aforesaid observations, one thing is also required to be noted that as of today the victim is discharged from the hospital, but there is no specific period by which the victim would gain consciousness. In my view, merely because the chargesheet is filed and the applicant is in custody for the last seven months cannot be the ground to release the applicant on bail in the face of the material which is discussed above. In view of the above, I am inclined to reject the application for bail. Hence the Order. ORDER . Application for bail is rejected. . If the applicant wishes that he should face trial at an early date, he is free to make an application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge before whom the case is pending, so that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge can consider the case before him and decide the same at an early date. -5- . In any case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge will wait for the report of the C.A. regarding the blood stained clothes. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)