jpc ba408-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 408 OF 2011 Sou. Seeta Laxman Madhae ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents and another Mr. V. S. Talkute, for the applicant Mrs. R. V. APP for the State Mr. M. S. Mohite, for Respondent no.2 CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 5th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Talkute, the learned advocate for the applicant, Mrs. Newton, the learned APP for the State as also Mr. Mohite, the learned advocate for respondent no.2. 2. The contention of Mr. Talkute is that except her own confession and the confession of the co-accused, there is no other material against the applicant. He submitted that the confessional statements of the applicant and of the co-accused have not been recorded in conformity with the the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the rules framed by the High Court in the matter of recording of such confessions. He also pointed out that no time for reflection was given to the applicant and that the alleged confessional statement came to be recorded just on the expiry of the period of police custody. The substance of his contention is that such confession is not likely to jpc ba408-11.sxw 2 be relied upon during the trial and considering this aspect, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. It is also submitted that the applicant is a women and, therefore, her case may be treated sympathetically. 3. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the applicant, I have glanced through the charge sheet. It appears that there are some circumstances which support the case of the prosecution against the applicant. Also, in my opinion, evidentiary value of the confession ought not to be judged at this stage and the matter should be left to the trial court, to be decided during the trial. Ultimately, the issue would be the admissibility of evidence, to be decided during the trial. 4. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, in my opinion, the applicant may not be released on bail, but, the trial should be expedited. The prayer for bail can be considered favourably, keeping in mind that the applicant is a woman, should the trial be not over within the stipulated period. 5. The application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Liberty to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within that time. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)