-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1476/2009 (Prashant Prabhakar Pusadkar .vrs. State of Maharashtra ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 23 rd JUNE, 2009 Heard Shri A.M. Jaltare, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Mandpe, the learned A.P.P. for State. This is an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. The applicant/accused is being prosecuted and charged for offence punishable under Sections147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 120B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. The allegations against the applicant and other co-accused are that they had been to the house of the deceased in the night of 06.08.2008. They knocked the door and wife of the deceased opened the door. She noticed Tikya @ Prakash and behind him one Saurabh Bhoyar. She is an eye witness to the incident. It is alleged that the deceased was hit by sword, koyta by Subhash Bhoyar, Tikya @ Prakash and his four associates. The report is lodged by her. The learned Counsel for the applicant has -2- submitted that she and other witness has not named the present applicant as an assailant i.e. Prashant. According to him this Tikya @ Prakash is some other person than this applicant. As against this, the learned A.P.P. has contended that the complainant/wife of the deceased was knowing this Tikya @ Prakash and as such no identification parade was necessary and infact the complainant had identified the present applicant as an assailant. Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant, this application cannot be granted. The release of the co-accused on bail does not make any difference. The Trial of the applicant is pending and hence the Trial Court is directed to expedite the same and charge be framed within a period of one month, thereafter the matter should be tried on day to day basis, within next two months. Liberty to the applicant to move for bail if necessary, after the evidence of eye witnesses is recorded. Criminal Application is disposed of. JUDGE Rgd