1 BA-G-689.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.689 OF 2011 Suhas Mahadev Roge .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Adik Shirodkar, Senior Counsel with Ajit Kenjale for the Applicant. WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1221 OF 2011 Hitesh Suresh Bhagat .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Counsel with S.V. Kotwal, S.S. Bhandary and Ajay Dubey for the Applicant. Shri A.S. Gadkari, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State in both Applications. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 14, 2011 P.C: 1. The applicants in these two applications for bail are respectively alleged paramour of the wife of the victim and the victim s son. They are alleged to have engaged 2 BA-G-689.11 in a conspiracy to kill the victim because of their differences with him. The victim was running some legal and illegal business from which he was making huge income. The victim s wife Jaya, who is also a co-accused, and whose bail application has been rejected, had been divorced from the victim and was in some sort of a relationship with applicant Suhas Roge. Applicant Hitesh Bhagat is the victim and Jaya s son. The victim had given reports to police expressing his fears from his wife, his son and even his brothers, who have subsequently alleged that it was the present applicants and Jaya who had conspired to kill the victim. It is alleged that accused Jaya instigated Suhas Roge by saying that Suhas was doing nothing in the matter of eliminating Suresh and then Suhas is alleged to have contacted one Harish Mandvikar for eliminating Suresh. Mandvikar arranged to have Suresh killed by having vehicle of Suresh dashed by a truck driven by one Pravin Shetty, who is accused No.1. Ajmuddin Shaikh, owner of the truck, is also a co-accused. This dash was given on 13-6-2008 between 1:20-1:25 p.m.. Till then, Mandvikar was in contact with Pravin Shetty, the driver of the truck, on mobile phone of Amle, who was driver of Mandvikar s 3 BA-G-689.11 vehicle which Mandvikar was using. Mandvikar was following the vehicle. 2. After the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons including the two applicants and they are in jail since July, 2008. Applicant Hitesh sought bail by filing Criminal Application No. 2224 of 2010 which was heard by me on 23-9-2010 and was rejected by order dated 1-10-2010. The present application has been filed by Hitesh contending that there is a change in the circumstance. The change is that, accused No.6 Kiran Pujari had applied to the Sessions Court for making a disclosure and to be made an approver. The prosecution stated that it had no objection to such a course and therefore Pujari was made a witness and has been examined as PW-5 at the trial, which has been going on. According to the learned counsel for Hitesh, the evidence of Pujari would show absence of complicity of Hitesh in the conspiracy and therefore in view of this change in the circumstance the application of Hitesh should be considered in the light of Judgment of the Supreme Court in Parvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 615. 4 BA-G-689.11 3. Applicant Suhas Roge had also filed an application for bail being Criminal Application No.940 of 2010. It had also come up before me on 23-9-2010 and was disposed of as withdrawn by causing it to be taken on board on 24-9-2010. 4. Therefore, though learned counsel for applicant Suhas Roge states that his application is being heard for the first time, it may be useful to mention that Suhas Roge s application was heard on 23-9-2010 along with that of Hitesh Bhagat. On the next day, Suhas Roge s Criminal Application No.940 of 2010, which was not on board, was caused to be taken on board and the learned counsel for Suhas Roge sought leave to withdraw it. Therefore, though the order does not mention that the application was heard and then allowed to be withdrawn, in fact it was heard along with the application of Hitesh Bhagat and then allowed to be withdrawn. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the applicants Suhas Roge and Hitesh Bhagat at adequate length and I have also heard the learned APP for the State. With the help of the three learned counsel, I have gone through the entire evidence once again, including the 5 BA-G-689.11 evidence tendered at the trial. The evidence tendered includes the evidence of Kiran Pujari who has become an approver. Since the trial is proceeding, it would be hazardous to make any comments on the material gathered in course of investigation or the material tendered at the trial which is half way through. 6. The learned APP is right in submitting that there is no change in circumstance which would warrant a fresh look at the case of Hitesh Bhagat or for that matter even Suhas Roge, who according to the prosecution, is in fact at the root of the conspiracy and the main player in the entire conspiracy. He submits that the prosecution did not seek to prove conspiracy with the help of the evidence of Kiran Pujari who was in fact made an accused. Kiran Pujari s disclosures, for whatever may be their value, only add to what the prosecution seeks to prove at the trial. Therefore, according to him, what Kiran Pujari stated or omitted to state would not be conclusive of the matter and the trial Judge would have to draw his conclusion only on the basis of the evidence which may be tendered at the trial. In view of this, without making any further comment on the merits of the matter, it would 6 BA-G-689.11 have to be held that both the applicants are not entitled to bail. 7. The trial Court is already expediting the hearing of the case. I had been told that the learned trial Judge was hearing the case for two days in a week. This arrangement was worked out as it was found convenient by both the prosecution and the defence. The Registry was asked to ascertain as to what were the difficulties of the trial Judge in having the trial conducted on a day-to-day basis. The Registry informs that there is no impediment for the trial Judge to hear the case continuously on a day-to-day basis. It was stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that there are two Supreme Court time bound matters before the trial Court which the trial Court Judge has to attend to. In one of those cases the recording of evidence is over and the second case is fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. Therefore, they are unlikely to occupy much time of the trial Court. 8. Incidentally, the approver Kiran Pujari had also approached the Supreme Court for bail and the Supreme Court rejected his 7 BA-G-689.11 bail application directing the trial Court to expedite the trial. Therefore, the hearing in this case is also expedited by the Supreme Court. 9. A disturbing feature of conducting sessions cases which has surfaced recently, particularly in Mumbai, is that sessions cases are not heard on a day-to-day basis. There are frequent adjournments and the recording of evidence stretches over, at times, years. A Sessions Judge is at the same time hearing several sessions cases on various days of the week which results in, first, lack of concentration on matters of importance, secondly, loss of time in recollecting the entire evidence tendered when the matter ultimately comes up for Judgment, and also accused persons in several cases being required to be produced from custody on innumerable occasions throwing burden on police machinery when the trial could be completed in one go, maximum in a month. Therefore, since the learned trial Judge does not seem to have any difficulty in hearing the matter continuously on a day-to-day basis, with the expectation that the Advocates representing the accused would co-operate, and that he would finish the 8 BA-G-689.11 trial in the case soon and would not allow the trial to see the year 2012, these applications are accordingly disposed of. 10. Needless to say, no observations made in this order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)