1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3817 OF 2009 Kumar Bapu Kachre .... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mr. Indrajeet Joshi for the applicant. Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant has been arrested for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 394, 397, 120-B, 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is registered with Hatkanangle Police Station vide C.R. No. 76 of 2005. 3. Prosecution case is that the complainant was heading towards Hatkanangle on his motorcycle for his official work on 14/07/2005. It is alleged that when complainant reached 2 Mangaon Phata, he saw that one motorcycle had fallen down in the middle of the road and a person was lying in pool of blood near the said motorcycle. It is also alleged that the complainant saw another person about 25 feet away from the said motorcycle and the said person had injuries on his body. A complaint immediately was lodged at Hatkanangle Police Station. It is also alleged that the said incident was witnessed by one 12 year boy who had seen the deceased and the injured being assaulted by three unknown persons with knife and stones. Thereafter, applicant was arrested and there was recovery of an amount of Rs 4,80,000/- which was stolen from the deceased at the instance of the present applicant. The statement of injured person was recorded in which he has named the present applicant as a person who had inflicted blows of knife on the deceased and on the injured person. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently urged that the statement of injured person was recorded after his arrest and no explanation had been given by the prosecution for the delay caused in recording the said statement. It is further stated that the statement of 12 year boy also was recorded. However, no identification parade has been held and, for the first time, it has been stated in the affidavit filed by the Police Officer that identification parade was held in 2006. It is further submitted that though, according to the prosecution, money was taken by deceased in a bag from HDFC Bank, Kolhapur, 3 the amount which has been recovered at the instance of the present applicant was found to be wrapped in different bundles of different banks. It is submitted that neither the blood-stained clothes nor the knife was recovered at the instance of the present applicant. 5. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has filed an affidavit and pointed out the material which is on record. It is submitted that the the injured was in the hospital. It is submitted that the statement of the injured was recorded afterwards since he was admitted in the hospital and he was sent to civil hospital, Kolhapur for treatment. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the statement of eye witnesses viz. Navnath Godannavar, Sudarshan Bharma Upadhye and Rajendra Gajanan Adake had been recorded. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, alternatively submitted that the applicant’s father is to be operated for the stomach cancer and atleast for a period of 15 days, he may be released on bail. 7. In para 13 of the affidavit filed by the learned APP, it is stated that after the inquiry was made by the Officer, they have learnt that the father of the applicant is not suffering from ulcer nor is he taking any treatment in respect of the said disease. It is further stated that, in fact, he was operated in 1996 and, therefore, there cannot be any further 4 surgery of the stomach. 8. Taking into consideration the material which is on record, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. There are statements of eye witnesses who have attributed a specific role to the applicant of assaulting the deceased with knife. The statement of injured witness also has been recorded, who has named the applicant as a person who was responsible for the said act. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the statement of injured person was recorded only after the accused/applicant was arrested and, therefore, this witness is a got up witness, cannot be accepted as, admittedly, the injured witness had to be admitted in the civil hospital and the explanation offered by the Investigating Officer is a plausible explanation. Further, there is recovery of money which was stolen from the deceased. It is possible that part of the money might have been later on added by the applicant and, therefore, discrepancy of different bundles of money being kept in the bag can be explained. In view of the averments made by the Police Officer attached to Hatkanangale Police Station in para 13 of the affidavit also, in my view, applicant does not deserve to be released on bail for a temporary period. Application for bail is therefore rejected. 9. Trial, however, is expedited. Applicant is languishing in jail as an under-trial prisoner for last four years. The Sessions Court, therefore, is directed to decide the case, if 5 possible, on day-to-day basis and, in any case, within a period of six months. 10. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)