1 BA No.1206/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1206 of 2011 Pravin Ramkrishna Chavan ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and anr ... Respondents ... Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b Avinash Kamkhedkar for the applicant. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP for the respondent no.1 State. CORAM : A.M.THIPSAY, J DATED : 26th August 2011 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant had previously applied for bail (Criminal Application no.87 of 2011). That application was decided without hearing the applicant as nobody appeared for him when the said application was called out. Thereafter, the applicant was given liberty to file a fresh application for bail. Accordingly, the present application has been filed. 2 BA No.1206/11 3. I have gone through the FIR and other annexures to the bail application. I find that the applicant has been named as one of the assailants by one person who claims to be an eye witness to the incident. A specific role, i.e of assaulting the deceased on head, by sword, has been attributed to the applicant. A sword is also stated to have been recovered at the instance of the applicant during investigation. 4. Mr.Mundargi, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that two other accused against whom similar allegation has been levelled have already been released on bail. He pointed out that the co-accused Nitin Jadhav has been released on bail by the Court of Sessions. I have gone through the said order and I find that the same came to be passed on the ground of parity between the said Nitin Jadhav and one Rohit Kadam, another co-accused who had been released on bail by this court earlier. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that the case of the said Nitin Jadhav and the case of the said Rohit Kadam were identical. 5. I have gone through the order passed by this court releasing Rohit Kadam on bail. This court observed that though the presence of the said Rohit Kadam at the time of incident was mentioned, it was not anyone’s case that the said Rohit Kadam was carrying any weapon or that he did an overt-act. It is on that basis, bail appears to have been granted to the said Rohit Kadam. 6. So far as the present applicant is concerned, a specific role has been attributed to him. The medical evidence shows that the death 3 BA No.1206/11 has occurred due to complications following head injury. 7. Thus, it cannot be said that the case of the applicant is on par with those who have been released on bail. It is true that there are no antecedents and it is also true that the applicant appears to be a young person but in the circumstances, I am not inclined to release him on bail. I am, however, inclined to direct the trial to be held expeditiously. Prayer for bail can be reconsidered should the trial be not over within the stipulated time. 8. The application is rejected. 9. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and endeavor to complete it within a period of six months from today. 8. Liberty to apply afresh for bail should the trial be not over by that time. (A.M.THIPSAY, J)