1appln-1354-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 1354/2010 Shri Daulatrao Mothabhau Jadhav vs. The State. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr Z. M. Avhad, for the Applicant. Mr S. N. Gawade, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 22nd JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18th April, 2009. The offence alleged against the applicant and other co-accused – his wife, daughter and his son. They all conspired altogether and committed murder of daughter-in- law of the present applicant and after killing her, pushed her in the well. Apparently, in the postmortem report there are no external injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Initially, cause of death opinion was reserved for awaiting C.A.report of the viscera. Now, it is told by the learned A.P.P. that viscera report 2appln-1354-10 does not show the presence of any poison. The final cause of death is now to be taken as asphyxia due to drowning. Still with this type of finding it is curious to note that the contents of panchnama, which is on record, show that well is 40 feet deep and having only water level of 1.5 feet at the bottom. In any way, if a person is to fall and thrown in the well, external injuries are bound to be sustained considering the height from which the person falls. All the same, it is a factual position that earlier two bail applications were withdrawn after prolonged hearing and other accused were granted bail. Even the application before the Sessions Court was also withdrawn for one time. There is statement of witness mentioning that there was demand of Rs.1 lac by the applicant from the deceased woman, his daughter in law and when only 50,000 rupees were procured by the said witness on the say of the deceased, present applicant did not accept the amount and threw away the same mentioning that an amount of Rs.1 lac is needed for the marriage to be celebrated within a week’s time in the same house. Apparently, such marriage was to be celebrated of one of the accused, sister-in-law of the victim. All the same, earlier bail applications before this Court were withdrawn after substantial hearing and directions were given then for liberty to the applicant to prefer fresh bail application in the event the trial in the matter does not commence within six months. Since then till today apparently the trial has not been commenced. However, in the opinion of this Court, considering the specific allegations against the applicant, it would not be in the fitness of situation to enlarge the applicant on bail. However, trial can be expedited giving some time bound programme to the concerned Sessions Court. Hence, the following order. 3appln-1354-10 ORDER: (a) Criminal Application No.1354/2010 is hereby rejected. (b) Learned Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter shall dispose of the said case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. (c) Learned Sessions Judge while deciding the matter on merits shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the present order so far as the merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J)