IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3000 OF 2009 Abdul Malik Abdul Rashid Momin ....Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Shri I.S. Thakur for Applicant Shri J.P. Yagnik, APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. Offence was registered on 11th of May, 2005. 3. The prosecution case is that the Applicant stabbed his second wife, as a result of which she succumbed to the injury. The incident took place on 10.5.2005 at about 11 O clock at night. There were two eye witnesses to the said incident. The postmortem notes corroborate the statement of the eye witnesses. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant vehemently urged that there is some discrepancy in the statement of the two eye witnesses and also FIR and panchnama of the scene of offence where the actual incident had occurred. He invited my attention to the statement of the two eye witnesses and also the panchnama of the scene of offence and FIR, which was registered at Mumbra Police Station. Firstly, he submitted that in all these statements, different places have been mentioned as the place where the offence was committed. He submitted that on this ground alone the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Secondly he submitted that so far as the statement of the second eye witness is concerned, her statement was recorded after three days and this delay has not been explained. Thirdly, he submitted that though the victim was alive for 15 hours, no dying declaration was recorded. Lastly, he submitted that the Applicant s daughter is 15 years of age and she is suffering from T.B. and she practically is at the last stage and there is nobody in the family who can look after the ailing daughter of the Applicant. There is no male member in the family to look after the children of the Applicant. He alternatively submitted that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail to look after his ailing daughter. 5. The submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant cannot be accepted. It is no doubt that there is some discrepancy in the statements if witnesses. However, the fact remains that there are statements of two eye witnesses who have witnessed the said incident. Delay in recording the statement of the second witness has been explained by the said witness in her statement. In my view, no case is made out for grant of bail. The Applicant, however, may file a separate application for temporary bail. 7. The learned APP for the State submits that chargesheet is already filed and prosecution proposes to examine 15 to 20 witnesses and the trial may be over within a period of six months. 8. Under these circumstances, the trial is expedited. The Sessions Court may decide the case as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six months. Liberty is granted to the Applicant to apply for bail if the trial is not over within a period of six months. Liberty is also given to the applicant to apply for temporary bail as mentioned hereinabove. 9. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)