1 CA-4262.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4262 OF 2009 Jitendra Shantilal Modha .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Vidyadhar B. Koshe with Avinash Khamkhedkar & Vinod Shetye for the Applicant. Ms Geeta P. Mulekar, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: DECEMBER 07, 2010 P.C: 1. This is an application for bail by one Jitendra Modha whose brother Nitin Modha was the mastermind in kidnapping one Sagar for ransom on 14-8-2005. First, a missing complaint was lodged then a report was given on 19-8-2005. The applicant was arrested on 15-9-2005. Sagar was murdered in some forest in Gujarat afterwards. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks bail contending that the applicant had in fact no role to play in the entire incident. He states that the allegation against the applicant is that the applicant provided information to Nitin Modha about the 2 CA-4262.09 movements of Sagar on the fateful day. He submits that the applicant has a shop adjacent to the shop of Sagar's father. The applicant's father Shantilal was also co-accused in this case and he was arrested and he has been bailed out and subsequently expired. He also states that Mohammed Abbasali was also bailed out when the ransom money in fact had been received by Mohammed Abbasali on behalf of the kidnappers. Therefore, according to him, there is no warrant for detaining the applicant, particularly when the trial is not taking place though the applicant is in jail for the last five years. 2. I have heard the learned APP and have gone through the charge-sheet which has been produced. The question as to whether the evidence which is sought to be placed on the record for proving the complicity of the applicant is admissible or not would have to be gone into by the trial Judge at the trial. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge upon the issue and rule upon the admissibility of the evidence now. Therefore, the case has to be approached on the basis of the charge-sheet as has been filed. Since the applicant had provided the necessary information which 3 CA-4262.09 enabled the kidnappers to kidnap Sagar, it cannot be said that the applicant has absolutely no complicity in the matter. His father having been bailed out need not be commended upon by me, so also the bail granted to Mohammed Abbasali because he claimed that he was a mere hawala agent who was doing a post office job of collecting money on behalf of all and sundry who gave money to him for being transmitted. The applicant's role cannot be compared with the roles of those who have been bailed out. Since the information which the applicant provided enabled the kidnappers to kidnap the victim, the applicant's application is rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the trial Judge would not be in a position to take up the case for hearing since there are already three expedited matters pending before the Judge, one of which is expedited by the orders of the Supreme Court. All the same, since the applicant is custody for the last five years, the learned Judge would have to take up the matter expeditiously and if the learned Judge is over-burdened, it would be for the judicial administration to ensure that sufficient number of Judges are 4 CA-4262.09 posted to deal with cases of under-trials. Once the trial commences before the learned Judge, the prosecution should ensure that it would go on day-to-day basis and finished in one month. The learned Judge should take up the case after the Supreme Court expedited matter and the earlier expedited matters are over and finish the trial once it begins within a period of three months. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)