IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3343 OF 2009 Suhas Shankar Bendke ..... ..... ...Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... ..... ..Respondent. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr. Adv. i/by Ms.Sharmila Kaushik, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 17th Sept., 2009. PC: This is an application moved under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for bail by the applicant named Suhas Shankar Bendke. On lodging of FIR by one Shantaram regarding assault on his brother Sambhaji on 17.10.08 offence came to be registered under sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC. According to the FIR the other two co- accused and the present applicant had been to the shop of first informant. The deceased Sambhaji was in the shop itself. Two unknown persons threw chilly powder in eyes of Sambhaji and Sanjay Chorge attacked Sambhaji by sickle whereas Amit Ranade attacked him by sword and the present applicant has allegedly attacked Sambhaji on the head by sickle. Sambhaji died on account of multiple injuries on vital part of body. There are about 23 injuries on the person of deceased. Few days prior to the incident dated 17.10.08 a complaint was lodged with the police by the deceased against co-accused and their friend possibly referring to the present applicant. However according to the learned counsel for the applicant the said earlier 1 dispute was resolved amicably and thus whatever is stated in the earlier complaint cannot form basis to constitute motive for commission of offence in question. In the FIR itself the present applicant has been named and it is stated that he has assaulted the deceased by means of sickle. According to the learned APP blood stained clothes are also seized on discovery made by the applicant under section 27 of Evidence Act. Having regard to the nature of multiple injuries found on the person of deceased gravity of offence can be realised. As eye witnesses have named the present applicant as one of the assailants I do not feel this to be a fit case for grant of bail. Hence application deserves to be rejected. However having regard to the fact that the applicant is in custody for about 11 months last I deem it appropriate to issue direction for expeditious dispose of trial. In the result application is rejected. Sessions Judge shall made endeavour to expedite trial. I hope and trust that he would commence the trial within a period of three months failing which applicant is granted liberty to move fresh application. 17.9.2009. 2