1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 450/2011 (BA) Pradip Rambhau Lavangewar ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, City Police Station, Chandrapur Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A. D. Hazare, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the non-applicant CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 19.9.2011. 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Hazare, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. S. S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested in City Police Station, Chandrapur Crime No. 174/2010, for offence punishable under Sections 302, 304(B), 306, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, has filed instant application for bail. 3. In earlier Criminal Application (BA) No. 92/2011, by order dated March 18, 2011, the said application for bail was disposed of as withdrawn with direction to the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, to expedite the trial of the case and for taking appropriate steps for commencing the trial by 1st of July, 2011 and 2 it was stated that in the event of the trial being not commenced within the said period, the applicant shall have liberty to apply for bail. The present application has been filed on the ground that the said condition of commencing the trial by 1st of July 2011, has not been complied with. 4. By way of reply, the respondent has stated the events which took place before the learned Sessions Judge, which caused the delay in commencing the trial. It is stated in the reply that on 18/08/2011 charge has been framed and case was fixed for trial on 08/09/2011. 5. No contention was raised before this Court in the previous application that the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not applicable. However, after the order dated March 18, 2011 was passed by this Court in Criminal Application (BA) No. 92/2011, the accused moved the application dated 03/05/2011 before the trial Court for deletion of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The said application was, however, withdrawn as not pressed, on 13/06/2011. On 13/06/2011, the learned A.P.P. submitted the program for trial but, on 30/06/2011, the accused applied for discharge. The disposal of the said application took sometime and that was disposed of on 11/08/2011 and it was dismissed. Soon after on 18/08/2011, charge was framed. It is reported that presently the case is for trial on 22/09/2011. 3 6. In view of the above and in my view, there is no non-compliance of the order. The delay in commencing the trial was due to the actions of the accused himself and, therefore, the accused does not deserve to be given benefit of the same. Even otherwise, the previous order does not say that non-compliance would make the applicant entitled to bail. 7. On the merits, it is seen that there is prima facie evidence against the applicant, due to which, charge has been framed against him and the matter is proceeding for trial. 8. No case has been made out for grant of bail at this stage. Hence, the application is rejected. 9. Application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Punde.