BA-306-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2025 Sundarsingh @ Gulbya @ Shiva s/o Shivaji Bhosale, Age 28 years, Occupation Labour, R/o. Gondegaon, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. … Applicant [Orig. Accused No.2] Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Police Station Officer, Police Station Sonai, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. ….. Mr. S. D. Kotkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 13.03.2025 Pronounced on : 17.03.2025 ORDER : 1. Applicant seeks grant of regular bail in consequence of his arrest in crime no. 0073 of 2022 registered at Sonai Police Station, District Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar), for offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 397 r/w 34 of IPC. 2. At the outset, learned counsel pointed out that present application is successive bail application and his previous attempts to seek bail are already turned down. However, now present application 2025:BHC-AUG:7541 BA-306-2025 -2- is on the ground of long pre trial incarceration as there is no progress in trial. Learned counsel pointed out that applicant is behind bars since 30.06.2022 and further pointed out that, charge sheet is already filed way back in 2022 itself. He further pointed out that FIR was against unknown person. Applicant is not identified in test identification parade. Therefore also, learned counsel submits that, applicant has good case on merits. However, currently learned counsel confines his submissions to long pre trial incarceration, rather than on merits. 3. Learned APP opposed on the ground that serious offence is committed. That, there is recovery at the instance of the applicant. That, investigation revealed availability of incriminating material and therefore applicant is chargesheeted. Previous orders of rejection of bail are also brought to the notice of this Court. 4. Heard. Perused the papers. FIR dated 02.03.2022 with Sonai Police Station is at the instance of one Navnath Kardile and substance of his report is that on said night around 12.30, when he and his relatives, i.e. uncle and his family members, who are neighbours, after taking dinner had retired to sleep, at that time, two thieves came on the field. Informant claims that he also saw both thieves scuffling with BA-306-2025 -3- his brother Bapu. When all woke up and rushed there, the said thieves tried to flee through onion crop. He has reported that, one of the thieves was caught by informant, his uncle Subhash and cousin brothers Bapu, Rahul and Omkar. Name of the said thief was Babakhan Shivaji Bhosale. But his other unknown associate inflicted knife blows on Omkar, causing him grievous injuries and subsequently both the thieves managed to flee. Therefore, crime was registered against Babakhan Shivaji Bhosale and one unknown person. 5. Papers show that investigation was conducted. Injured Omkar reportedly died due to hemorrhage and shock due to stab injury on left side of the neck and therefore, crime was registered for offence punishable under Sections 302, 394, 397 r/w 34 of IPC. 6. Learned counsel has, at the threshold, pointed out that present application is successive application and that previous applications for bail were rejected. His concern is of pre trial incarceration as, according to him, in spite of charge sheet being filed in June 2022, there is no progress in the trial. 7. Learned APP pointed out that he has oral instructions from his counterpart in the trial court that, charge is already framed on BA-306-2025 -4- 06.01.2024 and since 23.02.2024, matter was awaiting muddemal. However, subsequently on two occasions i.e. on 02.03.2024 and 02.01.2025, entire muddemal is received and now learned trial Judge has already issued summons to the witnessess. He further made oral submission that in this case, prosecution would examine at the most 13 to 14 witnesses and as such, there are bright chances of trial itself coming to an end in few months. 8. On above submissions advanced by learned APP, learned counsel for applicant fairly submitted that, in above situation and as subsequent stage is achieved, trial court be directed to conclude the trial within six months. However, Hon’ble Apex Court has already clarified and observed that trial courts should not be directed to conclude trial by assigning particular period i.e. by making matter timebound. Bearing the same in mind, this Court is not inclined to direct trial court a particular time or schedule for conclusion of trial. Going by the statement made by learned APP, that prosecution intends to examine at the most 13 to 14 witnesses, as stated, there are bright chances of matter coming to an end within few months itself, if there is co-operation from defence side also. Resultantly, no case being made out for grant of bail, following order is passed : BA-306-2025 -5- ORDER I. Application is dismissed. II. Learned trial court is requested to give priority to the trial as applicant is already behind bars since almost three years. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] vre