Dismissed

Jaya Talakshichheda v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Jul 2012BA/626/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the applicant's fourth bail application, noting the trial is imminent with only formal witnesses and the Investigating Officer remaining. The applicant was directed to submit a fresh application if the trial exceeds four weeks despite an earlier six-month extension.

What did the court decide?

Discharged and directed to submit a fresh bail application within four weeks if trial is not completed.

Jaya Talakshichheda Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

ba 626-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 626 OF 2012

¶4

Jaya Talakshi Chheda ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr.V.G. Pradhan for the Applicant. Mr.A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State.

¶6

CORAM : R.C. CHAVAN, J.

¶7

JULY 4, 2012

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1 This is the fourth application for bail by the

¶10

applicant whose previous applications had already been

¶11

rejected. The learned Public Prosecutor states that the trial is at fag-end and only two witnesses remain to be examined apart from the one who is in witness box. He states that one of them is formal witness and the other is Investigating Officer.

¶12

2 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that

¶13

the previous application was rejected because the

¶14

prosecution apprehended that the evidence would be

¶15

sat 1/3

¶16

ba 626-2012

¶17

tampered with. There was in fact an attempt to bribe one Kiran Raghu Pujari who had turned an approver. Since the trial is at the last leg and the learned Judge is taking up the case on day to day basis and the prosecution is not seeking adjournment, at this stage of trial, application cannot be granted. It is rejected.

¶18

3 It is clarified that the learned Judge should

¶19

hear the case on day to day basis without granting any adjournment to the prosecution and should complete the trial, as early as possible. Since another Hon'ble Single Judge seems to have granted time of six months to dispose of the case, it would not be possible to accede to the request of the learned Counsel for the applicant to allow the applicant to renew the request if the trial is not over within four weeks.

¶20

4 However, needless to mention that though time to complete the trial has been extended by six months, it does not imply that the learned Judge will wait till the last day of the six months period granted to him and should as far as complete the trial within a period of

¶21

sat 2/3

¶22

ba 626-2012

¶23

four weeks itself since the only witness that remain to be examined are formal witness and one Investigating Officer.

¶24

(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)

¶25

sat 3/3

Jaya Talakshichheda v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Talakshichheda v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Hebal Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samir Sonu Sehgal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad S. Gupta @ Dev Shyamlal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Creative Outerwear Limited Vs Shailesh H. Bajaj and Anr.

Sylvester Domnic D'Cunha Since Deceased through His Heirs Delma Sylvester D'Cunha and Ors. Vs Kumar Anant Joshi and Anr.

Vantian Sandiagu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.