1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3528 OF 2009 Subhash S/o.Dnyanoba Jadhav APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.R.J.Nirmal, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent/State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 23/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present applicant, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.102/2008 registered in Hatta Police Station, Tq.Basmat, Dist.Hingoli, for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 498(A), r/w.34 of The IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for applicant. According to him, the alleged incident of murder of deceased Sitabai took place in the morning/afternoon of 16/06/2008 and on the very day, the applicant accused was arrested in connection with said crime. It is also urged that already the investigation is over and by passing requisite committal order, the trial was already committed to the Court of Sessions before Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat Nagar on 2 25/02/2009, and now it is numbered as Sessions Case No.18/2009. The prayer to release the applicant on bail is mainly on two grounds. First that there is not direct evidence against the applicant that he had killed his wife, and second even though the trial was committed to the Court of Session on 25/02/2009, still no charge is framed against accused and hence as observed in case of Balkrushna Pande versus State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 186 as the accused have right of speedy trial and the trial is delayed, hence he be released on bail. 3. The application is vehemently opposed by learned APP appearing for State, as according to him, even though there is no direct evidence as alleged on behalf of the applicant, there is statement of eye witness who has seen the accused with an axe in his hand with which the scull of the deceased was damaged and broke by the present applicant and the applicant was found with the said weapon stained with blood in his hand, stood near the dead body of the deceased from where he was taken in custody. In the premise, according to him, there can not be any better evidence to show the nexus between the death of the deceased and the present applicant. Initially, it is necessary to deal with the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. In the said case, the offence was registered against the applicant accused somewhere in the month of August 1999 for an offence u/s. 307, 323, r/w. 34 of The IPC. After passing of the committal order, the trial was repeatedly adjourned for more than 2 years for framing of the charge 3 and in that circumstances, it is observed by the Apex Court that in such small cases, if the trial is waiting for years together even for framing of the charge and there was no progress, then the applicant to be released on bail as his right of speedy trial is denied at the hands of the Sessions Court. As against this, in the present case, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 25/02/2009, and yet the trial is to commence. As on today, there are how many cases of the under trial prisoners are pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat Nagar is not on record. In the premise, if the Trial Court is flooded with cases of under trial prisoners, it can not be said that right of speedy trial is denied to present applicant inspite of he is waiting for his trial since the month of Feb. 2009. We can understand these submissions if the record is produced in this Court that only the trial of this applicant, who is under trial prisoner, is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmatnagar and still there is no progress in the said trial, then there is substance in the submissions of learned counsel that right of speedy trial is denied to the applicant, but in absence of any such record, it can not be said that the ratio as laid down in the rulling of Apex Court is squarely applicable to the present application. 4. Coming to the nexus about the death of the deceased and the applicant, the statement of the eye witnesses recorded during the investigation clearly states that on hearing noise outside the house of the deceased, she came out and saw that the skull of the deceased Sitabai was damaged and parted in two parts and blood was oozing 4 from the injury sustained. She has further stated that she saw the present applicant standing near the body of the deceased holding an axe in his hand which is also stained with blood and the clothes of the applicant are also stained with blood, and if it is so, this evidence is as good as the direct evidence about the nexus of the death of deceased and the role played by the present applicant. In the premise, it can not be said that this is a case of no direct evidence at all and only rests on the circumstantial evidence. In the premise, the application sans merit and deserves the following order : O R D E R 1. Application stands rejected. 2. At the same time considering the grievance of the applicant accused, it is directed to the Court of Sessions, Basmat Nagar to dispose of the trial of the accused within the period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the writ in this case. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. 4. The Court of Sessions not to influence with the observations of this Court while passing any order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3528-09