BA-392-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.392 OF 2011 Shahid Iqbal Shaikh @ Chingu ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru' Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. G.L. Thonge for the Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 30 TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the Bail Application and the annexures thereto. 3. The Applicant is in custody since 19th October, 2009. The trial is in progress. Six witnesses for the prosecution have already been examined. The Applicant's application for bail was rejected by the Court of Sessions on 12th January, 2011, observing that the trial would be disposed of within short period. The grievance of Mr. Thonge, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, is that no witnesses have been examined in the last four months. If this is true, then it must be observed that it is not proper. BA-392-11.sxw 2 Dixit 4. The arguments for bail, that are now being advanced are by referring to the evidence that has been recorded. In my opinion, it would not be proper to analyze the evidence for the purpose of ascertaining whether there exists a strong case against the Applicant or not. It may only be observed that the Police report and accompanying documents make out a prima facie case against the Applicant. Now, in addition to the material in the Charge-Sheet, the evidence adduced so far, in the trial also may be required to be seen, which at this stage of trial, is not advisable for obvious reasons. A deeper evaluation of the evidence should be done by the trial Court only. In the circumstances, when the trial can be expected to be over shortly, the Applicant may not be released on bail. 5. The Bail Application is rejected. 6. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it, in any case, by 5th August, 2011. 7. The trial Court be requested to report compliance. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]