Noor Mohammad Ibrar Ali Shah v. State Of Maharashtra

Prasad Rajput IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.

OF 2025 Noor Mohammad Ibrar Ali Shah .. Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. Amrish Salunke, Advocate for Applicant.

 Mr. Dinesh J. Haldankar, APP for State.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : APRIL 24, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

Heard Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Haldankar, learned APP for State.

2.

Present Application for bail is filed by Applicant who is in incarceration for the past 2 years. Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate for Applicant would persuade the Court to hear the facts of the present case wherein he would submit that there were multiple short precursor incidents which ultimately led to and resulted in the alleged incident in question. He would submit that as per prosecution case Applicant has mowed down the deceased victim who was the occupant of the Swift Dzire car which was stuck by his truck. He would submit that prior to the incident in question, the Applicant's truck brushed the Swift Dzire car which was driven by victim and the First Informant

because of which they intercepted the truck and a quarrel ensued between them thereafter. He would submit that the said quarrel led to a verbal altercation resulting in a scuffle and severe abuses being exchanged which resultantly enraged the Applicant to knock down the victim. He would however argue various defences stating that the alleged incident was not preplanned or premeditated. 2.1.

He would fairly inform the Court that trial has commenced and 8 out of the probable 21 prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution.

3.

If that be the case it would be inappropriate for Court to give any prima facie imprimatur on the facts of the case lest it would affect the trial. Best course of action in my opinion therefore would be to give appropriate directions in the facts of the present case delineated hereinabove to expedite and complete the trial in a time bound program.

4.

Mr. Salunke after taking instructions would persuade the Court to pass appropriate order for expediting the trial. Mr. Haldankar, learned APP has also assisted the Court in the present case appropriately.

5.

In view of the prima facie observations, the learned trial Court seized of the trial is directed by the Court to complete the trial

as expeditiously as possibly and in any event within a period of 6 months from today.

6.

Needless to state that if the trial is not completed as directed, it shall be open for Applicant to approach this Court for seeking bail.

7.

Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

P.R. Rajput [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]