1 BA 308.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 308 OF 2011 Shrikant @ Tatya @ Vishal Madhavrao Sonavane. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. Shekhar A. Ingawale i/b. Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal i/b. Mr. Prakash Naik for the Original Complainant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 17th JUNE 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. The Applicant is in custody since last more than 5 years. The trial has not even commenced. The charge against the Applicant and the others is of an offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. 3. I have gone through the FIR. Four persons have been given an active role - i.e. of firing by revolvers - in the FIR. Admittedly, the Applicant is not one of them. 2 BA 308.11.sxw 4. Mr. Ingawale submits that one of the persons named in the FIR as the actual assailant – Prakash Jere - was subsequently discharged, as, at the material time he was found to be detained at Goa Jail. Another person named in the FIR, who was also alleged to have fire a shot - i.e. Ashok Jadhav - was also subsequently discharged and the statement in the FIR involving him was explained as a case of “mistaken identity”. Mr. Ingawale also submitted that two of the co- accused have been released on bail, under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Cr. Procedure; as investigation could not be completed within the stipulated period. 5. Under these circumstances, it is just and proper that the Applicant should be released on bail. 6. Further, my attention is also drawn to the order dated 6th April 2011 passed by this Court. By the said order, the Trial Court was directed to hear the case on day today basis. Today, a grievance is made by Mr. Ingawale that the trial could not proceed because of the non co-operation of the first informant. He submitted that though undertaken before the High Court that he would withdraw the transfer application, the first informant did not do so. 7. Thus, apart from the merits of the matter, for the purposes of bail, as discussed above, it also appears that the first informant himself is not eager for an expeditious trial. 3 BA 308.11.sxw 8. Under these circumstances, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one surety in like amount. (A.M. THIPSAY,J.)