jpc ba733-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 733 OF 2011 Snehal Pongul ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Datta Mane, for the applicant Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 15th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Mane, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.the learned APP for the State. 2. I have gone through the bail application and the annexures thereto. 3. The applicant was not initially named as an assailant by the first informant. It seems that it was because the first informant had not actually seen the assault. The statements recorded in the course of investigation indicate that the applicant was one of assailants, and an active role i.e. of actually assaulting the deceased by chopper, has been attributed to him. The injuries sustained by the deceased show the assault to be of extremely brutal nature. Blood stained clothes are jpc ba733-11.sxw 2 also said to have been recovered at the instance of the applicant. It cannot be said, that there exists no prima facie case of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Mane, the learned Advocate for the applicant, submits that the applicant is in custody since the last one year and seven months. I am informed that the trial has not yet commenced. Indeed, the trial is somewhat delayed, but, as there exists a strong prima facie case against the applicant of having committed the offence punishable punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail, on this ground. However, the trial can be directed to be expeditiously held. 5. The application is rejected. 6. However, the trial Court shall hold the trial expeditiously and complete it within a period of six months from today. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)