IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.112 OF 2005 Ramesh Tekumal Dandwani ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Ms.Anjali Iyer for Applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 18, 2005. JANUARY 18, 2005. JANUARY 18, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Having regard to the material on record to establish motive and the circumstance to indicate the complicity of the Applicant, coupled with the seriousness of the offence, not a case for bail. The argument that the prosecution theory is unacceptable or that there is contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, is a matter for trial. For the time being, the evidence : 2 : on record clearly establishes the complicity of the Applicant. Besides, the statement of Motiram and Shantaram, my attention has been drawn to the statement of Jadoram Choteram. Insofar as argument that the Applicant is suffering from chronic Bronchitis, also does not commend to me because appropriate treatment can be offered to the Applicant while in custody. 3. Taking overall view of the matter, no reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the Court below. Hence, rejected. 4. The district Judge, Thane, is directed to assign the case to the Fast Track Court, if not already assigned, so as to ensure early disposal of the trial. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.