1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.610/2010. (Ravindra s/o Bhagwat Jawale Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.RV Gore, Advocate h/for Mr.GK Kshirsagar, Adv. for applicant; Mr.DV Tele, APP for State. ________ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 2nd March, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The accused in custody from 10th October, 2007, moved applications to release him on bail. One of such application, being Criminal Application No.2122/2009, was rejected after hearing the Counsel by order dated 24.8.2009. It was observed, if the trial fails to commence and there is no progress in the matter, the applicant is at liberty to move this Court after three months. Taking clue of such indication, another Criminal Application No.4478/2009 was moved by 2 the accused. It was heard on 27th January, 2010. Owing to statement made by learned APP, that the matter was for evidence, as witness summons was issued, this Court found progress in the trial. Consequently, relaxation in the condition as sought and request of release on bail was refused. 3) This is now 3rd exercise in continuation. The learned Counsel submits, that inordinate delay in trial has added as a persecution to the accused, consequently he is entitled for bail. Counsel submits, that the Apex Court in the matter of Bal Krishna Pande Vidur Vs. State of U.P. - 1998 1 SCC (Cri.)1291, in identical situation, entertained such application and directed release of the accused. 4) The Counsel is incorrect. In the matter of Bal Krishna Pandey Vidur, the Apex Court had occasion to verify the medical evidence, which the Apex Court felt was not adequate to keep the said accused in 3 custody. 5) The Counsel took recourse to the judgment in the matter of Amit Jogi Vs. State of Chattisgarh, decided on 3rd May, 2006 and particularly paragraph 22 thereof. The learned Single Judge by order dated 3rd May, 2006 has observed as under : "Unfortunately, the trial Court did not complete the trial within the time specified by this Court vide its order dated 23-9-2005. The learned trial Judge had sought extension of time by six more months to conclude the trial. Therefore, this Court vide its order dated 27-4-2006 in Misc.Criminal Case No.766 of 2006 extended the time up to the end of September, 2006 and while doing so, the Court called for a report from the learned trial Judge as to why the trial could not be concluded within six months specified by this Court. Even now a doubt is expressed as to whether the trial Judge would be able to conclude the trial 4 within the extended time of six months. Be that as it may, having perused the materials placed before the Court, there is nothing to show that the applicant accused or other accused were responsible or contributed anything for the delay in the trial. It is true that the delay in trial itself would not be a valid ground to grant bail to an accused in a non- bailable offence, but, delay in trial certainly will be a relevant circumstances to be considered by the Court along with other relevant grounds urged for grant of bail." 6) It is thus apparent, even the learned Single Judge was of the opinion, delay in the trial itself would not be a valid ground to grant bail to the accused in a non-bailable offence. 7) Passingly, since the Counsel also refer to the merits in the matter, I find the accused/applicant was an architect in the alleged embezzlement carried at the bank. He had borrowings in his name; in 5 the name of his wife and others, which went in crores of rupees. There was an undertaking by the accused/applicant that the loans availed by others were indeed by him by certain manufacture of the documents. This was also one of the grounds to reject bail at the initial stage. The long drawn custody, cannot exclusively to be blamed to the prosecution as several applications are moved with rather sole object to protract the proceedings to take recourse of the liberty allowed by this Court to move. Such conduct, cannot be countenanced and will not come as a tool and rider to coordinate to release the applicant/accused on bail. Three applications on different grounds are pending before the learned Judge. Non- bailable warrant was issued to one of the accused, i.e. accused no.3, its report is also awaited. 8) In the scenario, I do not see that delay in framing of the charge by itself 6 should be a paramount consideration to entertain the present application, seeking bail. The application rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cran610.10