Bombay High Court
Ajit Atmaram Apraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 August, 2021
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
1-Ba-3008-2019-With-Ia-1500-2020-With-Ia-890-2021-With-Ia-1395-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3008 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 890 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1395 F 2020
Ajit Atmaram Apraj ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Vikas Tiwari a/w Mr. Fakhruddin Khan i/by Ms. Pradnya U.
Raibole, Advocate for the Applicant in B.A. & I. A.
Mr. Vaibhav Bagade, Special P. P. a/w Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for the
Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola with Mr. Prayag Joshi i/by Mr. Bipin Joshi,
Advocate for Respondent No.2/Intervenor.
.....
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 12th AUGUST, 2021.
PER COURT:
1. The applicant has preferred this application for bail
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.R. No.45 of 2015 registered with
Tilak Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. The offences were registered
under Sections 341, 328, 344, 364-A, 386, 387, 392 & 120-B of
Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").
Digitally signed
by SAJAKALI
2. This is second application for bail. The previous
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
JAMADAR
LIYAKAT Date:
JAMADAR 2021.08.20
11:14:14
+0530
SLJ 1 of 7
1-Ba-3008-2019-With-Ia-1500-2020-With-Ia-890-2021-With-Ia-1395-2020.doc
application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26 th
November, 2018. However, the trial Court was directed to make an
endeavour to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the victim
aged about 21 years was abducted by accused. Ransom calls were
made. Victim was assaulted. Informant was threatened and huge
amount was extorted by the accused.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is in custody from 26 th April, 2015. He is in jail for a
period of about 6 years. There is no progress in the trial. The first
witness was examined in the year 2017 and the evidence of the
said witness is not yet over. The examination-in-chief of the witness
has commenced from 6th November, 2017. The said witness is still
under examination. In spite of direction to expedite the trial, there
is no progress in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant also
pointed out the order passed by the co-ordinate bench in
application preferred by co-accused, expediting the trial vide order
dated 30th September, 2019. Learned counsel for the applicant
relied upon the rojnama of the proceedings before the trial Court in
support of his submission that there is no progress in trial. It is
submitted that there is no evidence for offence under Section 364-
SLJ 2 of 7
1-Ba-3008-2019-With-Ia-1500-2020-With-Ia-890-2021-With-Ia-1395-2020.doc
A. The amount which is collected has no link with amount parted
by the complainant. The Investigation officer has recorded
statements of several witnesses. It is not clear as to when the trial
would conclude. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi V/s. The Director, Central
Bureau of Investigation dated 27th July, 2021 wherein bail was
granted by the Apex Court on the ground that accused is in custody
and although evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, still it
would take time to conclude trial. The accused was in custody for
eight years 6 months.
5. Learned Special P. P. Mr. Bagade submitted that the
offence is of serious nature. The previous application was rejected
by this Court on merits. Pending the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 has
been examined. The accused had preferred multiple applications
for bail. The prosecution proposes to examine about 82 witnesses,
out of which about 39 witnesses are panch witnesses. New special
P. P. has been appointed. He has taken charge in the case and there
would be no delay if defence cooperates with conducting the trial.
The trial would be conducted diligently. There is ample evidence
against the applicant. There are about 10 accused in this case.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Sudeep
SLJ 3 of 7
1-Ba-3008-2019-With-Ia-1500-2020-With-Ia-890-2021-With-Ia-1395-2020.doc
Pasbola submitted that the accused had preferred several
applications before the trial Court. The complainant is always
willing to cooperate with recording of evidence. He has not delayed
in trial in any manner. The trial would be concluded expeditiously.
7. The previous application was rejected on merits vide
order dated 26th November, 2018. The trial Court was directed to
make an endeavour to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Apparently, the evidence of PW-1 had commenced in November -
2017 and it is not yet concluded. The report was called from the
trial Court about status of the trial. In the report dated 20 th October,
2020 it was stated that the accused Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 are in
judicial custody and accused No.9 is on bail. All the accused are
represented by various respective advocates. The matter is pending
for recording the evidence since 3 rd January, 2017. Several bail
applications and miscellaneous applications were moved by either
of the accused from time to time which was accordingly dealt with
after hearing both the sides. Since 5th December, 2019 further
examination-in-chief of PW-1 is going on, on the verge of
conclusion. However, due to lockdown further examination-in-chief
was withheld from 20th March, 2020 and since then the matter has
been adjourned due to pandemic COVID-19 as per directions
SLJ 4 of 7
1-Ba-3008-2019-With-Ia-1500-2020-With-Ia-890-2021-With-Ia-1395-2020.doc
received. During the period of lockdown also the accused were not
produced before Judicial custody nor Special P. P. had appeared.
The Police Officer appearing before the Court regularly. During
lockdown bail applications were moved which were accordingly
dealt with vide Exh.182 moved by accused No.5. The application
moved by the applicant/accused was rejected on 11 th August, 2020
and the application of accused No.7 was rejected on 1 st October,
2020.
8. It is true that the accused are in custody for substantial
period of time. The trial had proceeded at snail speed. However,
from the rojnama and the report submitted by the trial Court it
appears that there are several factors which had caused delay in
trial. The trial Court in its report has stated that the accused had
preferred several applications. The facts still remains that the
applicant is in custody since last six years. It was also brought to
my notice that special P. P. appointed to conduct the prosecution
had resigned. However, new special P. P. has been appointed. He has
appeared before this Court. He has taken the charge of the
proceedings. The learned Special P. P. has indicated that the trial
would proceed diligently. Half of the witnesses to be examined by
the prosecution are panch witnesses which would not take much
SLJ 5 of 7
1-Ba-3008-2019-With-Ia-1500-2020-With-Ia-890-2021-With-Ia-1395-2020.doc
time in recording their evidence. The next date before the trial
Court is 18th August, 2021. The counsel for the applicant had
submitted that Special P. P. had not appeared on several occasions.
Mr. Bagade submitted that he has been appointed as Special P. P. to
conduct the trial. There would be no delay by the prosecution and
trial would be concluded as expeditiously as possible.
9. Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, it would
be appropriate to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within
a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order. It
is expected that both the sides would cooperate the trial Court in
concluding the trial. The evidence of PW-1 be concluded
immediately. The prosecution shall take steps to make available all
the witnesses for examination on the date of hearing before the
trial Court. The defence shall cooperate with the trial Court in
concluding the trial. The trial Court shall give priority to this case,
considering the fact that on several occasions the trial has been
expedited and the accused are in custody for a period of about six
years. In the light of the aforesaid directions, bail cannot be
granted.
10. Hence, I pass the following order :
SLJ 6 of 7
1-Ba-3008-2019-With-Ia-1500-2020-With-Ia-890-2021-With-Ia-1395-2020.doc
ORDER
(i) Criminal Bail Application No. 3008 of 2019 is rejected and disposed of accordingly;
(ii) The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months. The prosecution as well as accused shall not delay the trial and both the sides shall cooperate with the trial Court in concluding the trial.
(iii) The trial Court shall give priority to this case and proceed with the trial diligently, considering the fact that the accused are in custody for a period of about six years.
(iv) In the event, the trial is not concluded within six months, the applicant is at liberty to prefer fresh application for bail.
(v) Both Interim Applications are disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
SLJ 7 of 7