Akshay Sunil Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2016 Anil Mahaling Kasture ...
Applicant Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent ALONGWITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.139 OF 2016 Akshay Sunil Jadhav ...
Applicant Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent ALONGWITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.892 OF 2015 Mayur Arun Gavali ...
Applicant Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent ALONGWITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.2476 OF 2015 Santosh Shivaji Salkar ...
Applicant Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Adv. i/b. Smita Padole, Adv. for applicant in 13 and 139 of 2016 Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad, Adv. i/b. S H Panhale, Adv. for applicant in BA No.892 of 2015.
Mr. Rahul Kate, Adv. for applicant in BA No.2476 of 2015. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State in BA Nos.13 and 892 of 2015. Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP for the State BA No.139 of 2016. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the State in BA No.2476 of 2015. CORAM : SMT ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
DATE : 5 th February, 2016.
P.C. :
1.
The applicants herein are facing trial in Sessions Case No.
22 of 2015 pending on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara. The applicants have claimed that they are falsely implicated in the said case and have sought to be released on bail.
2.
The learned APPs for the State have submitted that the trial is at the fag end and seven witnesses remain to be examined and one of the material witness i.e. Nodal Officer is summoned on 18th February, 2016. The learned APPs have further submitted that the trial was delayed as the applicant / accused were not represented by any advocate. The learned APPs have further submitted that the co-accused had filed an application for transfer of the case which has resulted in delaying the trial.
3.
Considering the fact that the trial is at the fag end and only 7 witnesses remain to be examined, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Considering the fact that the applicants are in custody since over one year, the learned Sessions Judge, Satara is directed to complete the trial as expeditious as possible and in any event within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order.
4.
The applications are dismissed with liberty to file fresh
applications in case the trial is not concluded within three months. 5.
The applications are dismissed.
( ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. )