Shri Manoj Bharatiya, In Judicial Custody Sub-Jail, Sada, Vasco Da Gama Thr. Shri Hanshraj Gupta. v. Officer In Charge Ponda Police Station, Thr. Shri Suraj H Gawas, Psi Ponda Police Station And ANR.,
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NOS. 45, 46, 47 & CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 45 OF 2015 Shri Lalji Saroj, In Judicial Custody Sub-Jail, Sada, Vasco Da Gama Thr. Shri Hanshraj Gupta.
...
Applicant
Versus
Officer In Charge Ponda Police Station Thr. Shri. Suraj H. Gawas, PSI Ponda Police Station and Anr., ...
Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 46 OF 2015 Shri Rajiv @ Raju Gupta, In Judicial Custody Sub Jail, Sada, Vasco da Gama, Thr. Shri Hanshraj Gupta ...
Applicant
Versus
Officer In Charge Ponda Police Station Thr. Shri. Suraj H. Gawas, PSI Ponda Police Station and Anr., ...
Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 47 OF 2015 Shri Abhayraj Gupta, In Judicial Custody, Sub Jail, Sada, Vasco da Gama, Thr. Shri Hanshraj Gupta ....
Applicant
:2:
Versus
Officer In Charge Ponda Police Station Thr. Shri. Suraj H. Gawas, PSI Ponda Police Station and Anr., ...
Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 48 OF 2015 Shri Manoj Bharatiya, In Judicial Custody, Sub Jail, Sada, Vasco da Gama, Thr. Shri Hanshraj Gupta.
...
Applicant
Versus
Officer In Charge Ponda Police Station Thr. Shri. Suraj H. Gawas, PSI Ponda Police Station and Anr., ...
Respondents Mr. Rohan Pandurang Desai, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Public Prosecutor for the respondents. CORAM : K. L. WADANE, J DATE : 26 th FEBRUARY, 2015 P.C:
Heard Mr. R. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
2.
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Manoj assaulted the claimant by iron rod on head due to which
:3:
he was hospitalized for some days. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has argued that the applicants are behind the bar for 20 months and the trial of the accused persons has already been started and only three witnesses are examined. In all there are 31 witnesses. It is further argued that the way in which the trial is going on definitely some more time is required for its conclusion.
3.
The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has submitted that he will instruct the Director of Prosecution to make an arrangement of Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis. Further, he submitted that all the accused persons are from Uttar Pradesh and if they are released on bail they will jump bail and they will misuse the bail. In such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications.
4.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence levelled against the applicants is serious offence punishable for imprisonment of life or 10 years. Considering the fact that the trial has already been started, I do not think at this stage that the applicants are entitled for bail. Hence, all the bail applications stand rejected with a direction to the
:4:
learned Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receiving the order of this Court. All bail applications are disposed of accordingly. K. L. WADANE, J at*