jpc ba590-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2011 Saket Vikas Panse ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Rajeev Patil i/by Mr. Onkar Warange for the applicant Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State Mr. A. S. Khandeparker i/by M/s. Khandeparkar & Associates for the Intervenor. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 5th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Patil, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Newton, the learned, APP for the State as also Mr Khandeparker, the learned advocate for the Intervenor. 2. One Mangala Darbhe was murdered in the flat where she was residing. Son of the said Mangala one Anand-and Anand's wife were both away from the residence at the material time as they both are working people. The applicant is the cousin of Anand i.e. the son of the sister of Mangala. On learning that something untoward had taken place in their house, Anand returned home. Before that, the maidservant- Manisha had gone to the residence of the said Mangala. i.e. Flat No.303. She had seen the dead body of Mangala lying there in a pool of blood and had also seen the applicant lying there. jpc ba590-11.sxw 2 3. The applicant told to the others that Mangala was attacked by two persons who had run away. In the course of investigation, however, it was revealed that the said Mangala had been killed by the applicant only. 4. The presence of the applicant in the flat in question at the material time cannot be doubted. The contention advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant is that the applicant's version that Mangala was attacked by the two persons who ran away is probable and believable, and that the fact that the applicant himself was injured in the incident negatives the theory that he was the assailant. 5. I have carefully considered the matter. It appears that no serious injuries were at all sustained by the applicant. I find that only one stab injury on his palm was sustained by him. In this background, it would be significant that as many as 55 injuries were seen on the dead body of Mangala. Moreover, it does not appear that any unknown person or persons had entered the said building at the material time, and had gone out. Ordinarily, if any outsiders had entered the building at that time, they could have been noticed by the security personnel either while entering the building or while going away. The weapon of assault is also one picked up from the house itself. At this stage, therefore, it cannot be said that there exists no prima facie case against the applicant. jpc ba590-11.sxw 3 6. It is contended by the learned advocate for the applicant that except his confession allegedly given by him before the police, there is no other material against the applicant. This is not entirely correct, in as much as, undoubtedly, the applicant was present in the flat at the material time, when the incident took place and owes some explanation regarding the assault. 7. In any case, it would be hazardous, at this stage, to guess whether the case is likely to result in the conviction of the applicant. This is particularly so, because I am in formed that the charge has already been framed and the date 14th July, 2011, has been fixed for recording of evidence. In my opinion, in these circumstances, it would be proper to expedite the trial, rather than releasing the applicant on bail at this stage. 8. The application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and complete it , in any case, within a period of three months from 14th July, 2011. 9. Liberty to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within that time. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)