jpc ba674-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 674 OF 2011 Sanjay Ramchandra Pokharkar ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Amin Solkar, for the applicant Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 11th August, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Solkar, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is an accused in CR No.I-125 of 2010 of Kopar- Kharirane Police Station. The allegation against him is that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Pinal Code. 3. I have gone through the bail application and the annexures thereto. 4. The case against the applicant is based on circumstantial evidence. 5. Dead body of one Amol Gade was found laying in the bushes at jpc ba674-11.sxw 2 Pam Beach Road, at about 15 hours on 28th May, 2010. The death appeared to be homicidal and hence, the first information report was lodged by one Rajaram Sitaram Nehare. In the course of investigation, the applicant came to be arrested. 6. The prosecution case is that the applicant and the deceased were friends. The applicant was in love with a girl. The case is that the deceased had also developed the feelings of love towards the same girl and that he had expressed his love to the said girl. This fact was stated by that girl to the applicant. 7. The circumstances against the applicant are, the evidence of 'last seen together' and 'recovery of certain articles pursuant to the information disclosed by him'. 8. So far as the circumstance of 'last seen together' is concerned, there is satisfactory material to show that immediately before the incident, the deceased and the applicant were in company of each other. They were also found with each other near the place from where, later on, the dead body was recovered. Mr. Solkar urged that the evidence of last seen together is not satisfactory. He submitted that the versions of the witnesses in that regard were coming rather late and only after the first information report was registered, though the witnesses were aware of the fact that the deceased was missing since jpc ba674-11.sxw 3 26th May, 2010. I am not impressed by this contention. It is obvious that the witnesses came forward to give their versions only after they learnt about the homicidal death of the deceased. 9. Considering the existence of a motive, and the circumstances of 'last seen together', it cannot be said, at this stage, that there exists no prima facie case against the applicant. 10. After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the applicant should be released on bail. It would be, however, proper to direct the trial to be expedited, keeping in mind the period in custody already spent by the applicant as an under trial prisoner. Prayer for bail can be re-considered, if the trial is not over within the stipulated time. 11. The Application is rejected. 12. However, the trial court is directed to be expedite the trial and complete it by the end of December, 2011. 13. Liberty to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over by that time. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)