1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2663 OF 2009 Subhash Bhaskar Kale & Ors. .. Applicants. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.S.G.Kudle for the applicants. Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 8TH JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in C.R.No.96 of 2008 of Jejuri police station, District Pune. The crime has been registered against the applicants and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 395, 397, 307, 109, 120(B) of IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that on 22.8.2006 the complainant – Prashant Dahale, came to be assaulted and thereafter gold ornaments and cash from his jewellery shop came to be robbed by the accused persons. Mr.Kudle, learned 2 counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are entitled for bail on two grounds. Firstly, the applicants were not identified in the test identification parade and secondly, that they came to be arrested in November 2006, and since then they are languishing in jail. On the other hand Mr.Yagnik, learned A.P.P. submitted that the applicants have committed serious offences under sections 395 and 307 of IPC. He submitted that though the applicants were not identified in the test identification parade, there was recovery of the ornaments worth Rs.1 Lac at their instance and all the ornaments, recovered at their instance, were identified by the complainant and his father. He further submitted that even if the applicants were not identified in the test identification parade still the provisions of section 412 of IPC are attracted. Punishment under this section is imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend upto ten years. He submits that the present applicants are the main accused involved in the case. After having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having taken into consideration that there is a recovery of the robbed articles from the shop of the complainant and that they were identified by the complainant and his father, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail. Hence the application is rejected. However, the trial Court shall endeavour to complete 3 the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferrably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order. If the trial does not get over within nine months, as aforementioned, liberty to the applicant to apply for bail afresh. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)