Keval Suresh Gaikar v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4502 OF 2021 Keval Suresh Gaikar ...Applicant

Versus

State Of Maharashtra

...Respondent

....

Mr. Raju D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. A. S. Pai, Special P. P. a/w Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the Respondent - State.

CORAM

:

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE :

14th MARCH, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

This is second application for bail. The previous application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21st November, 2019. In view of the order dated 1st February, 2022, this application has been listed before this Court, considering the fact that the previous application was rejected by this Court. 2.

The applicant is seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. I-337 of 2015 registered with Ambernath Police Station, Dist. Thane for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 142, 143, 147, 148, 149 & 341 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and Sections 4 & 25 of Indian Arms Act.

3.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is custody for a period of about 5 years and 4 months. by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2022.03.16 11:46:12 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR

There is no progress in the trial. First witness is still under cross examination. The co-accused Aashish Amrut Sawane @ Ashish Amarappa Sawale has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 27th October, 2021. The role of the applicant is similar to the co-accused. The applicant has not delayed the trial. The prosecution has examined several other witnesses. The applicant cannot be kept in custody for inordinate period. 4.

Learned P.P. submitted that the previous application was rejected by this Court on merits. The trial can be expedited. The prosecution is willing to proceed with the matter on day to day basis. On instructions it is submitted that the prosecution proposes to examine about 25 to 30 witnesses. In the event, the defence does not obstruct the smooth progress in the trial, the prosecution is ready to proceed with the trial expeditiously. Learned P.P. has tendered the report dated 14th March, 2022 submitted by Police Sub Inspector, Crime Branch. The report is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. It is further submitted that, while granting bail to the co-accused, Court has considered the fact that the said accused was in custody from 25th January, 2017. There was no assurance from the prosecution that the trial would proceed expeditiously. In view of the report of the Police as stated above, this Court may direct that the trial be concluded expeditiously.

5.

Without going to the aspects as to who has delayed the trial, considering the report tendered by learned P.P. and submissions of learned P.P. about expeditious trial, I pass the following order :-

ORDER

i.

Bail Application No. 4502 of 2021 is rejected; ii.

The trial is expedited;

iii.

The trial Court is requested to conclude the trial within period of six months.

iv.

It is expected that there will be cooperation from the defence and prosecution in concluding the trial expeditiously. v.

The delay caused by the accused would be excluded from the period of six months.

vi.

In the event the trial is not concluded within 6 months, the applicant will be at liberty to prefer fresh application for bail.

vii.

Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)