1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [BA] No. 333 of 2011 (Kamal S/o. Ratan Badhel Vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.S. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N.R. Rode, APP for the State/Non-applicant. CORAM : M. N. GILANI, J. DATE : 15 th JUNE, 2011. Heard. Applicant is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 350/10, pending on the file of Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur. The accused has been charged with the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201, 120-B, 506(B) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Applicant/accused had moved this Court with a prayer to release him on regular bail. His application has been decided by this Court on 11th April, 2011. This Court declined to release him on regular bail, however, liberty was given to him to apply for temporary bail to attend the marriage. In pursuance to this order, an application was moved by applicant for grant of temporary bail for a fortnight i.e. from 15th May 2011 to 15th June, 2011, for attending the marriage ceremony of his niece and nephew. This Court on 4th May, 2011 granted liberty to applicant till 15th June, 2011, so as to enable him to attend the marriage ceremony of his niece and nephew. By this application, the applicant has reiterated his prayer to release him on bail and also made a prayer, of course, in alternative, to grant him on interim bail. 2 When the prayer for regular bail was rejected, this Court directed to dispose of Sessions Trial as early as possible and in any event before 30th July, 2011. As informed by learned Advocate for applicant, some witnesses have been examined in the trial viz. (i) Bhaurao Housoji Salam and (ii) Suresh Bhimrao Naik. He has produced on record the deposition of two witnesses recorded in trial. According to him, the material witnesses have been turned hostile and now nothing remains in the case. Learned Advocate for the applicant placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh Kishanpuria Vs. State of West Bengal (Typed Copy) in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 3224 of 2010, delivered on 03/05/2010, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the accused has a right to apply for regular bail and at the same time, he may apply for an interim bail, pending final disposal of regular bail application. The Court has power to grant regular bail, which includes power to grant an interim bail pending final disposal of the regular bail application. In the present case, regular bail application has already been rejected. Interim bail was granted for a particular purpose and for a particular period. The marriages have been solemnized and the period, for which the interim bail was granted, is expired. Therefore, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court. The fact that the two witnesses, examined by the prosecution, have turned hostile and therefore, the accused should be released on bail, may not be the ground for grant of bail particularly, when this issue has already been decided. In the interest of justice, this Court has already directed to dispose of trial expeditiously. It seems that the trial is proceeding and would be over within a short time. This is 3 evident from the fact that some witnesses have already been examined. For the reasons stated above, the application is rejected. JUDGE *sdw