rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3095 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3095 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3095 OF 2008 IN IN IN C.R.NO.192 OF 2008 C.R.NO.192 OF 2008 C.R.NO.192 OF 2008 Anil Raghunath Suroiia Sharama .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.S.V.Marwadi with Mr.Vinit V.Jain for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, AGP for the State for Respondent. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard Mr.Marwadi with Mr.V.V.Jain for the Applicant and Mr. Rajesh More, learned AGP for the Respondent State. The Applicant is facing trial before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, and J.M.F.C. Vasai, District Thane, herein after referred to as the learned Trial Judge. 2. The Applicant is shown as an accused in FIR No.I-280/2007 of Thane Police Station and the charge-sheet has already been filed. He came to be arrested for offences under sections 199, 200, 463, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 492 of Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) The Applicant had preferred Bail Application to this Court being Bail Application No.443 of 2008 and that Bail Application was rejected on merit by order dated 30th April, 2008. While disposing of the said Bail Application, the learned Trial Judge was directed to take up the trial expeditiously. The Applicant was also permitted to file an application before the learned Trial Judge seeking early trial. The learned Advocate Mr.Marwadi submitted that though the learned Trial Judge was directed to take up the Trial expeditiously, the trial has yet not commenced and charges are not framed. He prays for Bail for the reasons on the ground that the allegations so far as the offence under section 467 is not made out. According to him the learned Trial Judge did not grant the Bail to the Applicant on the ground that the Applicant was charged under section 467 which offence is punishable for imprisonment of life or imprisonment of 10 years and fine. Mr.Marwadi further submitted that in the interest of justice, the learned Trial Judge should frame the charges. The learned Advocate Mr.Marwadi had submitted that the continued detention ( 3 ) of the Applicant for a period of more than one year or so is sufficient ground for granting the Bail Application. The learned Advocate Mr.Marwadi therefore, submitted that considering the record, this Court should grant Bail to the Applicant. 3. The learned Advocate Mr.More appearing on behalf of the State had opposed the Bail Application contending that the earlier order dated 30th April, 2008 rejecting the Bail Application was passed on merits and between 30th April, 2008 and today there is no specific change of circumstances brought on record so as to show that this Court should reconsider the case of the Applicant and grant him Bail. He had submitted that it is open for a person who is in custody to file the Application one after other, however, the Court will have to decide the said Applications on the basis of the well settled norms namely, once a Bail Application is rejected on merits, the second Bail Application can be considered if change of circumstances is shown. In the submission of Mr.More as of today there is no change in circumstances. In support of the aforesaid ( 4 ) circumstances, the learned Advocate Mr. More has relied upon the Judgment in the case of State of State of State of Maharashtra V/s.Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao reported Maharashtra V/s.Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao reported Maharashtra V/s.Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao reported in AIR, 1989 Supreme Court 2292. in AIR, 1989 Supreme Court 2292. in AIR, 1989 Supreme Court 2292. 4. In reply to the submission advanced by learned Advocate Mr.More and Mr.Marwadi submitted that the Applicant be granted liberty to file a fresh Bail Application before the learned Trial Judge after the learned Trial Judge frames the charges by raising a plea that the framing of charge should be treated as a change of circumstances. 5. I have considered the rival submission and the Judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr. More. I have noticed that the trial has not commenced. I am inclined to observe that in the fitness of things it would be proper to direct the learned Trial Judge to take up the task of framing of charge so that the Trial shall proceed. I am inclined to fix the date on which the learned Trial Judge shall proceed to frame the charge, of course after hearing the learned Advocate for the State as well as the ( 5 ) learned Advocate for the Applicant. Once charge is framed and the Applicant renders his plea, the trial shall proceed. After the charge is framed, it will be necessary for the learned Trial Judge to take up the Trial as expeditiously as possible. In so far as the request made by the learned Advocate Mr.Marwadi that the applicant be permitted to make a Bail Application before the Trial Judge after the charge is framed, I am inclined to observe that no such specific permission/liberty is required to be given by this Court. It will be open for the Applicant to attend to the matter as he may be feel proper by keeping in view the well settled law in regards to making an application for Bail. 6. Since I am inclined to take a view as mentioned above this Bail Application is not being disposed of with merits. 7. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order : :: O R D E R :: :: O R D E R :: :: O R D E R :: ( 6 ) i. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai, District Thane shall on 16th October, 2008 proceed to hear the learned P.P. as well as the learned Advocate for the Applicant on the question of framing of charge on the basis of the charge-sheet which is before him and complete the job of framing of charge as expeditiously as possibly and after learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai District Thane decides to frame charges in respect of certain sections of Indian Penal Code or any other law, he shall proceed to record the plea of the Applicant and that the Applicant shall render his plea accordingly. After the job of framing of charge is over the learned J.M.F.C., Vasai District Thane shall proceed to conduct the Trial as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the earlier order passed by this Court dated 30th April, 2008, though formal application has not been made by the Applicant before the learned J.M.F.C.,Vasai, District Thane. ( 7 ) ii. So far as the request of granting liberty to the Applicant to make a fresh Bail Application before the learned J.M.F.C., Vasai, District Thane, there is no need to grant liberty to make such an application by this Court. It will be open for the Applicant to attend to the said matter as he may feel proper keeping in view the well settled law as regards making successive applications of Bail. With this observation, this Bail Application stands disposed of. (R.Y.GANOO,J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.)