1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 605 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 605 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 605 OF 2008 Sandeep Haribhau Kamankar ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra Through P.I. Deolali Camp Police Station, District Nashik. ... Respondent Mr.Gaurav Javkar, Advocate,h/f Mr. sagar Kasar,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP, for the State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present applicant is accused No.2 in Crime No.80/2006 registered with the Deolali Camp Police Station, District Nashik for the offences under Sections 2 302, 363, 376 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 4.7.2006 at about 8 p.m.the deceased Priyanka was kidnapped by accused NO.1 - Kailash Navekar. She was aged about 14 years. She was taken to Deolali Camp firing range area. She was missing for 3-4 days and inspite of search, she could not be found. Later on, her dead body was found in a highly decomposed condition in Deolali Camp Firing Range Area. During the investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant/accused NO.2 was a rickshaw driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing No. MH-15/2293 in which the said accused No.1 and the girl Priyanka were seen boarding. That was the only evidence against him. 4. However, as the case was based only on circumstantial evidence, the Application NO.206 of 2007 filed by the present applicant was rejected by this Court on 15.2.2007 with a specific direction that the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, shall expedite the trial and dispose of the matter as early as possible and preferably within 3 months. According to the applicant, even though the period of more than one year has passed thereafter the trial has not even commenced and thus, the order of this Court has not been complied with. On 3 this ground, the applicant has moved this second application for bail. 5. Learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, makes a statement that accused No.1 - Kailash Navekar is facing six different cases of rape and other offences registered with different Police station in Maharashtra. Because he was required in different cases, trial of this case could not be commenced. In fact, when specific direction was given by this Court to expedite and dispose of this particular criminal case within specific period, the precedence should have been given to this case. Merely because accused No.1, who is the main accused, is required in several other cases, there was no reason not to proceed with the trial of this case. Even according to the prosecution, the present applicant,who is accused No.2, is connected with the offence only because the main accused and the deceased were seen boarding the autorickshaw at particular Rickshaw Stand. 6. Taking into consideration these circumstances and the fact that inspite of the direction given by this Court to expedite and dispose of the matter within 3 months, the prosecution has not made any attempt to get the matter expedited nor the trial Court took care to 4 dispose of or even to commence trial inspite of the lapse of about 14 months by this time, in my considered opinion, the applicant may be granted bail. 7. The applicant is hereby granted bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not misuse the bail in any manner. He shall also report at the Deolali Camp Police Station on every Sunday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the final disposal of the criminal case. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)