MP 1 BA908_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.908 OF 2011 Pappu @ Jagdish Algan Yadav ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.474 OF 2011 Anil Hardasmal Kamra ... Applicant Versus Pappu @ Jagdish Algan Yadav and another ... Respondents Mr. Amin Solkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Y. S. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State. Mr. S. H. Johi, Adcocate for the Applicant / Intervener in Appln. No.474/2011. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 P. C. : Criminal Application No.474 of 2011 for intervention is allowed and disposed of. 2. Criminal Application No.908 of 2011 is moved by one of the accused persons seeking bail in crime No.187 of 2007 registered with Hill Line Police Station in Sessions Case No.94 of 2008. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, it was contended on the earlier date that the trial is at the fag end and is likely to be completed soon. On 03.10.2011, this Court had noted the statement of the prosecution and adjourned the case expecting the trial to be over by 17.10.2011. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the trial is not yet completed. On the other hand, the learned APP makes a statement that on 19.11.2011, prosecution has already closed its evidence. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, two MP 2 BA908_11 more prosecution witnesses are to be examined and the date is fixed for tomorrow i.e. 22.11.2011. However, it appears that, Executive Magistrate, whose test identification report is already admitted in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 291-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is summoned on the request of the accused. Another witness P.W.9 is being recalled on the request of the accused No.1 as per the permission granted by this Court on 06.04.2011. 4. Taking into consideration the facts noted above, it is clear that as far as prosecution is concerned, it has completed its evidence. Two of the prosecution witnesses are being called or recalled on behalf of the accused and for that purpose the trial is pending. This cannot be a ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. 5. Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J. H. BHATIA, J)