Nathaji @ Navnath Srimant Kalel v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1336 OF 2021 Nathaji @ Navnath Srimant Kalel ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents .....

Mr. Shailesh S. Kharat, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for the Respondent - State. .....

CORAM

:

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE :

17th AUGUST, 2021.

PER COURT :

1.

This is second application for bail in C.R. No. 380 of 2018 registered with Sinhagad Road Police Station, Pune for offence under Section 364 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

2.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the parties have settled the dispute. The applicant was granted temporary bail for a period of two months and during that period he had not misused the liberty granted to him. The applicant is in custody for a period of about three years, hence, applicant may be Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2021.08.17 18:11:53 +0530 granted bail.

SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was married to the victim. It was an inter-caste marriage. The family of the complainant was against this marriage. The brother of the complainant and the other accused including the applicant, who are related to her, had abducted the husband of complainant. He was taken in the vehicle. One of the accused was armed with revolver. The accused were also carrying other weapons in the vehicle. The victim was assaulted. He was threatened. He managed to flee from the clutches of accused. He approached Police and lodged the First Information Report.

4.

Previous application for bail was rejected by giving detailed reasons. The primary contention of the applicant is that there is compromise between the parties. It is pertinent to note that the co-accused Ranjit Dattatray Karande, whose first application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench had preferred the second application for bail on similar ground. Since the Court was not inclined to grant bail, the said application was withdrawn and the trial was expedited.

5.

In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, I was not inclined to consider the relief for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the applicant sought withdrawal of this application. It is submitted

that the co-ordinate bench had directed that the trial be conducted expeditiously. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in custody for a period of about three years, the trial Court be directed to conclude the trial within stipulated time. 6.

In these circumstances, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months. Application is allowed to be withdrawn and stands disposed of accordingly.

7.

The trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months. In the event, the trial is not concluded within stipulated time, the applicant is at liberty to prefer fresh application for bail.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)