1 criap5156.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5156 OF 2010 Niranjansing s/o Bharatsingh Dudhani, age 25 years, occupation : Labourer, r/of Tangani,Tq.Ambarnath,Dist.Thane. applicant versus The State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Police Station, Majalgaon, District : Beed. respondent ------- Ms Manjusha Nayan, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri B.J.Sonawane, A.P.P. for the Respondent. Quorum: Shrihari P. Davare,JJ. Date : January 07, 2011. P.C. 01. Heard Ms. Manjusha Nayan, learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri B.J. Sonawane, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 02. This is an application for bail preferred by the applicant herein in connection with CR No.189 of 2009, registered with Police Station, Majalgaon, District Beed for the offences 2 criap5156.10 punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, as the applicant was arrested on 16.9.2009 thereunder and is in judicial custody, presently. 03. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present applicant had preferred application earlier, bearing Criminal Application No. 1283 of 2010 for grant of bail after filing of the charge-sheet which came to be rejected by this court on 19.04.2010 and thereafter the applicant has preferred present application seeking his enlargement on bail. 04. Ms. Manjusha Nayan, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the recovery panchanama was prepared on 16.9.2009 at about 8.00 a.m. wherein name of the applicant was mentioned as Mangalsing Ishwarsing Tak, but the signature of the applicant appearing at the bottom of the said panchanhama as Niranjansing. 05. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that as per station diary entry which was made at 19.30 hours on 16.9.2009, prosecution allegedly came to know that the name of the present applicant is Niranjansing Dudhani and not Mangalsing Tak and the copy of the said station diary entry is 3 criap5156.10 annexed at Exhibit C to present application. However, in spite of that position, the prosecution has not conducted T.I. Parade and hence, identity of the applicant is in doldrum. It is also canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in judicial custody since last about fifteen months and the trial is yet not commenced so far, mainly because of the lapse on the part of the prosecution and placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this court in the case of Rajdev Kumar Mathura Yadav vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 ALL MR. (Cri.) 1466. 06. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the wife of the present applicant is suffering from abdominal ailment and that she requires urgent surgery and produced her medical papers at Exhibit D collectively. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Thane and hence, there is no apprehension that he would abscond. It is further canvassed that there are no criminal antecedents and hence, learned counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 07. Learned A.P.P. Shri B.J.Sonawane opposed the present applicant, vehemently and pointed out that the arrest panchanama drawn on 16.9.2009 itself discloses both the names of 4 criap5156.10 the applicant i.e. Mangalsing Ishwarsing Tak (wrong name) as well as Niranjansing Bharatsing Dudhani (correct name) and it is submitted by learned A.P.P. that the applicant was caught red handed on the spot and the robbed bag containing silver and gold ornaments and cash were recovered from him on the spot itself and at that time he gave false name as Mangalsing Tak and tried to impersonate him and therefore, there is no question of incorrect identity of the applicant as canvassed by learned counsel for the applicant. Moreover, it is also submitted that since the applicant was caught red handed on the spot in the presence of witnesses, there is no necessity of conducting T.I. parade and, therefore, there is no substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 08. Learned A.P.P. for the respondent also submitted that there are in all seven accused persons involved in the present crime and five accused persons are absconding and, therefore, apprehension is posed that if present applicant is enlarged on bail, other wanted accused persons may not be traceable. It is further canvassed by learned A.P.P. that there is no change in the circumstances after rejection of earlier bail application, except the lapse of time and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, in the present application. 5 criap5156.10 09. As regards the ailment of wife of the applicant, it is submitted by learned A.P.P. that as per the medical papers, the wife of of the applicant is suffering from abdominal pains and it is nowhere stated that there is necessity of emergent surgery upon her. It is also submitted that although the applicant is resident of Thane, as canvassed by learned counsel for the applicant, the medical papers disclose that his wife is taking treatment at Osmanabad and, therefore, it is submitted that the permanent residence of the applicant at Thane is doubtful. 10. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties, it is the matter of record that earlier bail application No. 1283 of 2010, which was preferred by the applicant even after filing of the charge-sheet, was rejected by this court by a detailed and reasoned order dated 19.4.2010. However, the learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any change in circumstances thereafter except lapse of time. 11. Moreover, the applicant has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his contention that he is permanent resident of Thane, and hence, same is not conceivable. Besides that, the medical papers produced on record do not disclose that 6 criap5156.10 there is emergent necessity of surgery upon the wife of the applicant, necessitating enlargement of applicant on bail. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant could not make out any case for grant of bail to the applicant and, therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. However, considering the aspect that the applicant is in judicial custody since last about fifteen months, it is desirable and necessary to direct the learned trial judge to expedite the hearing of the case. 12. In the result, present application does not bear any substance and, therefore, stands dismissed. However, learned trial court is directed to conduct the trial of the concerned case expeditiously. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) pnd/criap5156.10 7 criap5156.10