BA-673-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.673 OF 2011 Dijay @ Ashish Ramesh Patil ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Tarapur Police Station, Dist. Thane ... Respondent Mr. G.T. Kanchanpurkar for the Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 15 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the Bail Application and the annexures thereto. 3. Smt. Vimal Raut - mother of the First Informant-Asha Patil - was murdered on 3rd August, 2010. A gold chain, which she was wearing on her person, was found to be missing. In the course of investigation, the Applicant and four others came to be arrested and charged for the said murder and robbery. According to the Investigating Agency, the Applicant is the person, who had, actually, committed the robbery and had assaulted the said Smt. Vimal in the course of committing the robbery, and that the death of Smt. Vimal took place because of the said assault. 4. Mr. Kanchanpurkar, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, submitted that there is no material to connect the Applicant with the alleged offences. He also submitted that all the co-accused have been released on bail. The gold chain has been recovered in the course of investigation, but not from the present Applicant. BA-673-11.sxw 2 Dixit 5. The only piece of circumstantial evidence, which the prosecution can expect to be proved against the Applicant, is recovery of the Applicant's clothes on which stains of human blood were found. The blood found on the clothes of the Applicant is said to be of the same blood group as of the deceased. 6. Though, except this material, there is no other material against the Applicant, the learned APP has pointed out to me that the Applicant has been involved in another case, which is in respect of an attempt to commit robbery. The relevant C.R. Number is I-28 of 2010 of Tarapur Police Station. I have seen the First Information Report in that case. In my opinion, the allegation against the Applicant in that case cannot be said to be irrelevant for the purpose of the present Bail Application. 7. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, and since this cannot be said to be a case where there is no material to connect the Applicant with the alleged offence, I am not inclined to release him on bail. In the circumstances, however, it would meet the ends of justice, if the trial is directed to be expeditiously held. 8. The Bail Application is rejected. 9. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and complete it within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Liberty to the Applicant to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over by that time. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]