SRJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.947 OF 2010 Gopi H. Thakur .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs. I.M.Kaparkar, for Applicant Shri K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for State-Respondent. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : AUGUST 17th, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for bail preferred on the medical ground. 2. Allegation against Applicant is that he is involved in the offences of the murder, rioting punishable under section 302 r/w section 34 and offences punishable under section 427 of Indian Penal Code. There are total seven accused including the present Applicant. SRJ 2 3. The incident took place on the night of 22 nd April, 2008 near Akurdi Railway Station, Akurdi, Pune, in the slum area. At that time when the deceased was taking dinner along with his family members in his room, all the accused, including the present Applicant gathered before the hut and started assaulting the deceased with iron bar and sticks. The role assigned to the present Applicant is of using iron bar and wooden stick. Apart from the first informant, there are three other witnesses during the said incident. 4. At the out set, during the arguments, the learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that this is the application on medical ground. In support of this submission, certain medical papers are brought to the notice of the Court and it is submitted that the Applicant is suffering from diminishing vision of both eyes since childhood. After carefully going through the medical papers, there is no clearcut understanding as to the Applicant is blind, either by one or by both the eyes. In the present matter reportedly, investigation is already over and even charge sheet is filed. 5. Under these circumstances, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to release the present Applicant on bail during pendency of the trial. Hence, SRJ 3 order:- (a) Criminal Application No.947 of 2010 is rejected. (b) Trial of the present case is expedited. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter to dispose off the said case according to law and on merits and as far as possible within nine months from receipt of this order. 6. Needless to mention that Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in the present order so far as the merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)