1 appln 829 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 829 OF 2011 Nish Dinesh Gupta .. Applicant. -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. D.G. Khamkar, for the Applicant. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 30th June, 2011 P.C. 1. This is second application for bail by the first wife of victim's husband's, on the ground that she has been in jail for almost two years now and the trial is yet to commence. Learned counsel for the applicant also points out that the only evidence against the applicant is in the form of statement of one Gaurishankar and Santosh who claimed to have gone to the police station on 2nd and 3rd day of incident, identified the applicant in the custody of police, when no test identification parade was held. If a person comes to know that murder has occurred at a place which he visits daily and thereafter decides to go to police station voluntarily informing the police as to what he had seen, no fault can be found with such person at that stage. Police could not be expected to tell the person to not see the accused in the custody and await till 2 appln 829 of 2011 test identification parade is arranged, since the police would not know as to whether person in custody is the real culprit. Identification of the applicant by two witnesses would be sufficient to connect the applicant to crime and it would be for the learned trial Judge to decide the question of identification in these circumstances on merits. Right now there are two witnesses who had seen the applicant on the morning of the day of incident in the victim’s house. Gaurishankar states that the applicant was in state of fear and there were red stains on her clothes. Considering this no case for grant of bail is made out. The application is rejected. 2. The learned trial Judge is directed to expedite the hearing and finish the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of six months and would ensure that no other case of under trial prisoner subsequently arrested is taken up for hearing. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)