1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1412 OF 2010 (Gowardhan Dattaytraya Garad and another .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Smt. (Dr) U.L. Kalsi, Advocate for the applicants. Smt. A.R. Taiwade, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 15TH OCTOBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicants are seeking regular bail in connection with crime No.51/2008 registered with Police Station, Washim for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 325, 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially these applicants have approached this Court by moving an application bearing Criminal Application No. 2832 of 2009. The same was allowed to be withdrawn at the request of learned Counsel for the applicants. The said order dated 01st September, 2009 is placed on record. By this order, this Court, while granting permission, observed that the trial Court is expected to hear and decide the Sessions trial as early as possible. On 13th September, 2010, while passing the order in the present application, this Court observed as follows :- “The grouse of the applicants is that despite order dated 1st September, 2009 passed by this Court, whereby the trial Court was expected to hear and decide the sessions case as fast as possible, the trial has not yet commenced till today. In view of the order passed by this Court, a report is received from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. It was submitted in the report that due to some difficulty, the trial was delayed and now the matter was fixed for recording of 2 evidence on 01.10.2010. This fact was also brought to the notice of the learned Counsel for the applicants. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that, on instructions, she wants to proceed with the application on merit. Learned APP was directed to file reply. The reply was filed. The record was also placed on record for perusal. The report specifically mentions the presence of the applicants on the spot. It is also the statement of the complainant as well as the statements of the witnesses that applicant No.1- Gowardhan was armed with iron pipe and applicant No.2-Dinkar was armed with stick. The record further discloses that the pipe and the stick are recovered at the instance of these applicants and these weapons were having blood stains. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that there is variance in the statements of the witnesses. She further submits that the medical opinion is not supporting the case of the prosecution. While considering the application for bail, prima facie material is considered and in depth assessment of the evidence or scanning of the evidence at the stage of consideration of bail is not expected. In view of the record produced by the learned APP, I find there is prima facie sufficient material against the applicants. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.