Bombay High Court
Divya W/O. Deepak Parkhe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 September, 2019
Author: V.K.Jadhav
Bench: V.K.Jadhav
1 925-BA.1617-18 & Anr.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
925 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1617 OF 2018
DEEPAK S/O. KEDU PARKHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Mr. R.S. Deshmukh i/b Mr. M.P. Bhaskar, Advocate for
Applicant.
Mr. R.V.Dasalkar, APP for Respondent-State.
...
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2019
DIVYA W/O. DEEPAK PARKHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Mr. B.K.Patil, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. R.V.Dasalkar, APP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV, J.
DATE : 04.09.2019
PER COURT :-
1. By order dated 09.07.2019, I have directed the Registry of this court to take instructions, as to what steps have been taken to comply with the directions given by the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and others [in Writ ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2019 23:00:54 ::: 2 925-BA.1617-18 & Anr.odt Petition (Criminal) No.310 of 2005] and to submit a detailed report. The Registrar (Judicial) of this court after taking the instructions from the Principal Seat has submitted the report. On perusal of the said report, it appears that permanent mechanism has been created for regular and periodic identification of the under trial prisoners, who have completed more than half to their maximum possible sentence. It has been stated in the report that an authority, with whom the responsibility of conducting the identification process is the Superintendent / Additional Senior Jailor (Judicial) / Judicial Jailor, as the case may be.
2. In the instant case, the applicants came to be arrested in connection with the present crime on 26.07.2014 and since then they are in jail. Charge-sheet came to be submitted on 22.09.2014. The Trial Court has framed the charge on 07.08.2017 and the prosecution has examined two witnesses out of the 70 witnesses. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that out of these two witnesses, witness No.1 Bachittarsing came to be examined by the prosecution on 22.10.2018 and the second witness came to be examined in the month of August 2019. By order dated 29.09.2017 while ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2019 23:00:54 ::: 3 925-BA.1617-18 & Anr.odt disposing of the Criminal Application No.4662 of 2017 filed by the present applicant namely Divya w/o Dipak Parkhe, I have directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case within six months from the date of the order. Thereafter, this Court (Coram : Mangesh S. Patil, J.) by order dated 16.04.2018 in Criminal Application No.4662 of 2017 has granted extension for a period of nine months to dispose of the case. By order dated 04.02.2019 this Court (Coram : Mangesh S. Patil, J.) has further granted extension till 31.12.2019.
3. In the backdrop of above, by order dated 25.04.2019, I called the report from the Trial Court as to the present status of the case and the reasons for delay in disposing of the same. On perusal of the report dated 30.04.2019 and 16.07.2019 of the Trial Court, it appears that there are 13 persons arraigned as accused persons and they are represented by different advocates. The learned Judge of the Trial Court has also pointed out that there are 100 witnesses enlisted in the charge- sheet. The learned Judge has also informed that there is a huge documentary and other muddemal property, as compared to loaded the truck, in this case. It is also informed that the informant on many times sought adjournment on the ground ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2019 23:00:54 ::: 4 925-BA.1617-18 & Anr.odt of her illness and uneasiness to give evidence before the Court. Later the informant met with an accident and was bed ridden in the hospital for more than two or three months.
4. In the light of the aforesaid facts and in terms of the directions given by the Supreme Court in case of Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and others [in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.310 of 2005] it would be a futile exercise to send this case back to be identified by the Superintendent of Jail and prima facie it appears that this case falls under the category as dealt with by the Supreme Court in case of Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and others [in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.310 of 2005]. It is thus for the Trial Court to pass an appropriate orders in terms of those directions given by the Supreme Court in case of Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and others [in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.310 of 2005] by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 436-A and so also 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Needless to say that the applicants are at liberty to file such an application before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall decide the said application, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2019 23:00:54 ::: 5 925-BA.1617-18 & Anr.odt period of 15 days.
5. Both the applications are disposed of.
(V.K.JADHAV, J.) ...
vmk/-
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2019 23:00:54 :::