BA-589-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2011 Ramesh Shankar Dhumal ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru' Murbad Police Station, Dist. Thane ... Respondent Mr. Sushant Karandikar, i/b. Ms. Nidhi Dotiya, for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 19 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the Bail Application and the annexures thereto. 3. It does appear that the Applicant gave blow with an iron rod on the head of the deceased, and that the death of the deceased was caused due to the said blow. 4. A number of contentions have been raised by the learned Advocate for the Applicant, but they relate to the aspect as to whether the offence allegedly committed by the Applicant would be one punishable under Section 302 of the IPC or whether it would be a lesser offence. Indeed, this aspect will need consideration during the trial, but the fact remains that the Applicant cannot be said to have committed merely a bailable offence. BA-589-11.sxw 2 Dixit 5. The proper course, in the circumstances, seems to be to direct the trial to be expedited, rather than releasing the Applicant on bail at this stage. Undoubtedly, the Applicant would be given liberty to apply for bail and his request for bail can be reconsidered, if the trial is inordinately delayed. 6. The Bail Application is rejected. 7. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and endeavour to complete it within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Liberty to the Applicant to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within that time. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]