1 2757.11 Cri. Appln. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2757 OF 2011 Gulamali Muradali Markani & ors APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Shri Amit S. Savale, Advocate for the applicants Shri N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent /State ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 21 st September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused Application and the annetures thereto. 2. Delay in trial of Sessions Case No. 6/2009, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurbar. Is taken as main ground for grant of bail to the applicants / accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the said Sessions Case. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Savale for the applicants / accused submitted that, considering the role of the applicant / accused No. 1 Gulamali in the crime i.e. assault on the injured 2 2757.11 Cri. Appln. person namely Sallauddin with sickle only, and causing of three injuries on non vital part of the body, this Court had granted bail to the applicant / accused No. 1, Gulamali in Criminal Application No. 870/2010 on 01-04-2008; and subsequently this bail was cancelled and the trial was expedited with directions to preferably decide the said case on or before 30-04-2011, vide order dated 2nd /5th July, 2010 in Criminal Application No. 1515/2010 by this Court. 4. Learned Advocate Shri Savale for the applicants / accused further submitted that now there has been delay in disposing off the trial and the injured had survived from the alleged assault and is no more of danger of losing his life, and therefore, these circumstances warrant the applicants / accused to grant bail. For reinforcing his submissions, the learned Advocate for the applicants / accused placed reliance on the following Judgments : “1] State of Kerla V. Raneef, reported in 2011(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 767. 2] Hussainara Khatoon V. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, reported in SCC-1980-1-1981. 3] Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare V. State of Maharashtra, reported in Supreme Court 2001 (5) 448. 3 2757.11 Cri. Appln. 4] Vivek Kumar V. State of U.P., reported in SCC (2000) (9) 443. 5] Shaikh Asraf Abdul Kadar V. Assistant Collector of customs, reported in Crimes, 1992 (2) 1089”. 5. Learned APP for the State submitted that this Court had rightly cancelled the bail of the applicant / accused No. 1 for the suppression of material facts from the view of this Court and for the criminal antecedents. He further submitted that there has been no willful delay in conducting the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurabar, and this Court has given three more months for disposal vide order 2nd/5th July, 2010, and now only few witnesses remained to be examined. He expressed the hope that the trial would conclude within a period of a month. Referring to Section 436(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he submitted that considering the charges under Section 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 149 alternatively read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the applicants / accused can make no claim to they being released on bail for the reason of the alleged delay in disposing off the said case. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Hussainara Khatoon’s case (referred supra) observed that the accused has right to speedy trial and and is said to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment a in violation of his 4 2757.11 Cri. Appln. fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as a result of long delayed trial. What is long delayed trial is a matter which largely depends on facts and circumstances of every case, and particularly in the light of provisions of Section 436(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in keeping with this doctrine of speedy trial observed in Raneef’s case ( supra) that the delay in concluding the trial is an important factor, of course not the only factor, in deciding the application for bail. 7. In the instant case, the applicants / accused were arrested on 14-10-2008, the day of incident, when the accused were members of unlawful assembly and had assaulted others with weapons, and are now facing trial for the commission of offence under Section 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 149 alternatively read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. as a joint shareholders of a criminal liability. Now, the trial is at concluding stage, and therefore, there can be legitimate anticipation of getting justice without any delay. Other cases cited by the learned Advocate in support of the applicant’s / accused’s submission stand on different factual footing, and therefore, have a little application in the present case. 5 2757.11 Cri. Appln. 8. In the result, this application fails and deserves to be rejected. Hence the same is rejected. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* September-11