1 BA.322&750-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2011 [THROUGH JAIL] Rajiv Hariram Chimnani and Anr. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. ..... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.750 OF 2011 Rajeev Hariram Chimnani. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Arfan Sait, Advocate appointed for Applicant No.2. Mr.Ashok Agrawal, a/w. Miss. S.D. Khot, for Applicant No.1. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 07TH JULY, 2011 [IN CHAMBER, 2:40 PM] P.C. 1. Heard rival arguments for sometime on this repeated applications for bail preferred by both the applicants / accused for their release during pendency of Sessions Case No.269 of 2009. Apparently, the charges against the present applicants are punishable under Sections 255, 260, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 BA.322&750-11 2. Earlier bail applications separately preferred by the applicants / accused Nos.1 & 2 were numbered as Criminal Application Nos.4802/2009 & 4803/2009. The said applications were finally heard and disposed of by this Bench vide detailed order dated 18.6.2010. That time, while rejecting the bail applications, directions were given to the trial Sessions Court to conclude the trial within nine months. Reportedly, the trial is not yet began for so many reasons including the reason as applicant - Sanjay in Criminal Application No.322 of 2011 preferred an application for discharge on 16.11.2010 before the Sessions Court and which was ultimately withdrawn on 12.4.2011. 3. It is a factual position that on the rejection of the bail applications of both the applicants, applicant No.2 Sanjay took the matter before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition. However, said Special Leave Petition was dismissed without there being any interference in the order of this Bench rejecting the bail applications. While rejecting the said SLP, directions were given to the trial Sessions Court to follow the directions of this Court as to expeditious trial. 4. Under the above premise, repeated bail applications were preferred which are being disposed of by this order. Both the 3 BA.322&750-11 learned Advocates, respectively appearing for the applicants, submitted that they are only arguing on the ground as to delay in disposing the pending Sessions Case and that they are not arguing on the merits. In fact, there being no changed circumstance, there could not have been any scope for argument on merits of the matter so as to reappraise the material available against the applicants. 5. Now considering the only ground as to trial not yet been started, the applicants are entitled for bail, Mr.Arfan Sait placed reliance on the following authority : [1] 2011(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 188 Rajdev Kumar Mathura Yadav @ Pappu Vs. State of Maharashtra. 6. By pointing out the ratio of the above said authority of the Single Bench of this Court, it is strongly submitted that the right of fair and expeditious trial of the applicant has been violated and thus he is entitled for bail. It is a factual position that till today, the charge is not yet framed. However, as per the report produced by the State, said Sessions Case is now fixed on tomorrow i.e. 8th July, 2011 for framing of the charge and as mentioned earlier, the discharge application preferred by applicant No.2 / accused - 4 BA.322&750-11 Sanjay was pending till 12.4.2011 and on that day it was withdrawn by the accused. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the ground as to alleged changed circumstance as to not having expeditious trial, cannot be considered as entitling the applicants / accused for bail when in the near proximity after framing of the charge which is fixed tomorrow, the matter can be put to an end. In that view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to again reappraise the situation and release the applicants on bail. Hence, the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application Nos.322 of 2011 & 750 of 2011 of respective accused stand rejected. [ii] Copy of this order be forwarded to both the applicants who are in Taloja Central Prison, for information. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) PPD