BA-485-11==.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.485 OF 2011 Prashant Ganesh Raut ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Roha Police Station, Raigad ... Respondent Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent. Ms. Rashmi Gagawani, i/b. Mr. Ganesh Gole, for the Intervenor-First Informant. Mr. Manoj Shinde, First Informant, present in person. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 8 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. Mr. Monoj Shinde, the First Informant, who is present in Court, and Ms. Gagawani, the learned Advocate for the First Informant, are permitted to appear and make their submissions opposing the Bail Application. 2. I have gone through the F.I.R. and glanced through the statements recorded during the investigation. 3. The First Informant is a practicing Advocate. Mr. Mundargi, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, has drawn my attention to the injury certificate issued by the Rural Hospital, which does not disclose that any of the injuries sustained by BA-485-11==.sxw 2 Dixit the First Informant could be categorized as 'grievous hurt'. Mr. Mundargi submitted that it is only in the medical certificates, which were issued by a private hospital, a mention of fracture injuries has been made. He also submitted that, after the filing of the Charge-Sheet, a certificate from the Civil Hospital, Alibag was added showing some of the injuries sustained by the First Informant to be grievous hurt. Even proceeding on the basis that grievous hurt was caused to the victim, and that a prima facie case exists against the Applicant, the question would be whether the Applicant, who has no antecedents, needs to be detained in custody till the trial would be over. The Applicant is in custody since 3rd January, 2011. 4. The learned APP for the Respondent submitted that charge has already been framed and the case is kept for recording of evidence, and that, as such, the Applicant may not be released on bail at this stage. I find that no evidence has, so far, been recorded. Undoubtedly, the First Informant, who is present in Court, blames the Applicant for delaying the trial. But, merely because the Applicant has made some applications before the trial Court, it cannot be said that he has been delaying the trial. 5. Mr. Mundargi, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that the Applicant is ready to abide by a condition, if imposed by this Court, that he shall not enter inside the local limits of Roha Taluka, Dist. Raigad, till the disposal of the case against him. 6. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail. 7. The Bail Application is allowed. BA-485-11==.sxw 3 Dixit 8. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.40,000/-, with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, on the condition that he shall not enter the local limits of Roha Taluka, Dist. Raigad, till the disposal of the case against him. 9. The concerned Additional Sessions Judge shall expedite the trial and complete it, in any case, within a period of six months from today. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]