Pradeep Sunil Sarode v. The State Of Maharashtra

11.BANo.25132014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2014 Pradeep Sunil Sarode ...

Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent .....

Mr.K.P.Anilkumar, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms.S.S.Kaushik, APP for the Respondent/State. ....

CORAM :

ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.

DATED :

3RD FEBRUARY, 2015 P.C.

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

2.

This is the fourth application for bail made by the applicant, who was previously on three occasions denied bail. The application is primarily on the ground of delay in disposal of the trial. The learned counsel for the applicant states that though 12 witnesses for the prosecution have already been examined, totally 40 witnesses have cited by the prosecution and the trial would be considerably delayed. He submits that the applicant is in custody since last about two and half years. He also submits that the injured Papa Shaikh and the First Informant - Vinod Jadhav, who are supposed to be the main witnesses in the case, have not yet Gaikwad RD 1/2

11.BANo.25132014 been examined during the trial. He submits that these persons are having criminal antecedents and that, both of them are presently in custody.

3.

It is true that the trial appears to have been delayed in spite of the directions given by this court to expedite the trial. However, in the present circumstances, where the evidence of a number of witnesses has already been recorded, it is not desirable to reconsider the question of grant of bail. Instead, appropriate direction can be given to the trial Court.

4.

The application is rejected.

5.

However, the trial Court shall expedite the trial and endeavour to complete it, in any case, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order by it. The Court shall require the prosecution to examine witnesses Papa Shaikh and Vinod Jadhav, as early as possible.

6.

Liberty to the applicant to apply afresh for bail before the trial Court itself, after the evidence of these witnesses is recorded. In the event of such an application being made, the trial Court shall decide the same on merits, without being influenced by the rejection of the applicant's previous applications for bail by this Court.

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.) Gaikwad RD 2/2