1 (Appln 1257 of 2011 with CRA 438 of 2011) Vat IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1257 OF 2O11 (FOR BAIL) Chandrakant @ Bablu Matadan Shukla & Ors. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents ---- Mr. L.M. Shukla & B.N. Deshpande for Applicant Nos.1 and 2. Mr.K.V. Saste- APP for State ---- WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 438 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Chandrakant @ Bablu Matadan Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents ---- Mr.K.V. Saste- APP for State Mr. L.M. Shukla & B.N. Deshpande for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 7th October, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. This is an application for bail. His earlier application for bail was rejected on merits. 2 (Appln 1257 of 2011 with CRA 438 of 2011) Vat 2, The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants submitted that though the Trial Court was directed to decide the criminal case within a period of four months and further extension of one month was given, the trial is not yet over and on the last date, an application has been filed by the prosecution to examine 25 other witnesses. He also invited my attention to the Roznama. He submitted that though a direction was given by the Sessions Court that the matter should be heard on day-to-day basis, even then the prosecution took one week's time on each date and as a result, the trial was not over within a period of five months as directed by this Court. He submitted that from the evidence, which is already brought on record, shows that there is no material on record as of today to connect the present Applicants with the commission of the said offence since the entire evidence of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the application filed by the prosecution to examine 25 witnesses has been rejected by the Trial Court and against the said order the revision application has been filed. It is submitted under these circumstances, the Applicants deserve to be released on bail. In support of the said submissions, he relied on two judgments; one judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of 3 (Appln 1257 of 2011 with CRA 438 of 2011) Vat Gyan Prakash, Petitioner v. State of Rajasthan, Respondent [1991 CRI. L.J. 1176] and another judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of State, Petitioner v. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Respondent [2004 Cri. L.J. 4388]. 3. The learned APP for the State has filed an affidavit in reply and in the said affidavit, he has given the reasons why it is necessary to examine the remaining 25 witnesses. He submitted that the list of witnesses was mentioned in the chargesheet and the Trial Court has rejected the application of the prosecution on the ground that the period within which the trial was to be completed had expired. 4. In my view, the prosecution is entitled to examine the witnesses which are relevant and material for the purpose of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The names of the witnesses which are now mentioned in the list were already supplied to the accused along with the chargesheet. The Trial Court, in my view, ought to have permitted the prosecution to examine these witnesses. So far as the question of grant of bail is concerned, taking into consideration the serious allegations which are made against the Applicants and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Criminal 4 (Appln 1257 of 2011 with CRA 438 of 2011) Vat Revision Application filed by the State, therefore, is allowed. 5. The prosecution, however, is directed to co-operate with the Trial Court and further direction is given to the prosecution not to take unnecessary adjournment and go on with the matter before the Trial Court, preferably, on day-to-day basis. The prosecution shall also ensure that the witnesses are kept present before the Sessions Court on each and every date. If the prosecution does not co- operate with the Trial Court and any observation is made to that effect by the Trial Court, in that event, the Applicants would be at liberty to approach this Court and renew the request for bail. As a last chance, time to complete the trial is extended by three months. Both the applications are, accordingly, disposed of. 6. Needless to mention that the witnesses which are already examined and which are mentioned in the list need not be examined again. (V.M. KANADE J.)