The court balanced the seriousness of the offence with the prolonged incarceration and the incomplete trial in granting bail to the applicant.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

2. This is an application for bail in connection with C.R. No.I-336 of 2016 dtd. 19/07/2016 registered with Narpoli Police Station, Thane for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC", for short) read with Ss. 37(1)(A) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

3. An earlier application for bail filed by the applicant was rejected on 09/03/2018 by the Sessions Court. The order dtd. 09/03/2018 reads thus :-

": ORDER BELOW EXH.26 : 01] The accused - Raju Manika Yadav is chargesheeted for offence under Secs. 302, 143, 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code and S. 37(1)(A), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

02] I.O. filed say Exh.27 and strongly opposed the application.

03] I have heard Ld. Advocate for accused and Ld. APP. 04] Ld. Advocate for accused submitted that the deceased and the present accused had a partnership. The person alleged to be an eye witness is also their partner. Witnesses Pankaj and Mithun made different statements. They contradict one another. It is strongly contended that P.M. notes show that food was digested but the witness says that the deceased had taken meal just before the incident. It is strongly contended that why complaint was given at 4.20 a.m. Chopper is not seized from the present accused. The complainant himself is a man having criminal background. The present accused has no antecedent.

05] Ld. A.P.P. submitted that the weapons are seized from the present accused.

06] I have perused charge-sheet. Informant, deceased and accused Raju had a dispute over supply of water to powerloom. They filed complained against one another. A criminal background of informant is not material to assess the involvement of present accused in the crime. There is seizure of chopper from the present accused. Some immaterial points in the statement of Pankaj and Mithun are pointed out. They are not material witnesses. The digested food shown in the P.M. Notes could not be assessed at this stage. There is direct occular evidence against the present accused. Hence, I do not find it just to enlarge him on bail. Hence, following order :

: ORDER : Application is rejected."

4. Thereafter, an application for bail was filed in this Court being Criminal Bail Application No.1957 of 2018. By an order dtd. 13/06/2019, this Court passed the following order :-

"1. At the outset, learned APP states on instructions, that the trial has commenced and till date 2 witnesses have been examined in the present case and that the prosecution intends to examine approximately 12 more witnesses. He further assures that all the said witnesses will be produced by the prosecution on the dates given by the trial Court. He states that the trial can be expedited and can be made time bound.

2. Since the trial has commenced and 2 witnesses have already been examined, it would not be appropriate to consider the application of the applicant. However, the trial of the applicant is expedited. The learned Judge to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 9 months from the date of receipt of this order. If, for no fault of the applicant, the trial does not conclude within the said period, the applicant is at liberty to file a fresh application, which will be considered on its own merits.

3. It is made clear, that this application has not been heard on merits.

4. The Application is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms."

5. The trial could not be concluded and by an order dtd. 15/02/2022 a further period of three months time was granted to conclude the trial. 6. The trial is yet to be concluded. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that one eye witness was examined and he has turned hostile. The other eye witness could not be examined as he is said to be absconding. It is submitted that this eye witness is wanted in a case registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 19