ORDER Vishnu Sahai, J. - Heard Counsel for the parties. This is all application for bail in a case under sections 307. 353 read with S. 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(25) and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. According to the prosecution on 25th February 1999, sometimes in the morning. P.S.I. Chandan Shive of Anti Extortion Cell, Chembur. Bombay, received an information that the Applicant along-with his associates would be reaching Govind Patil Gajargully Road in village Chuin, Khar (West), in a Maruti Gypsy van at about 12 noon to extort money from some businessman. Consequently. P.S.I. Chandan Shive along with police personnel reached the said place. After sometime they noticed that a Maruti Gypsy van, inside which the Applicant and two co-accused persons were sitting. P.S.I. Chandan Shive asked the Applicant to surrender but instead he fired with a revolver in his direction. P.S.I. Chandan Shive to save his life fired with his revolver, resulting in the Applicants suffering an injury. Thereafter the Applicant and his two associates were apprehended on the spot. From the person of the Applicant one mobile phone one revolver. 4 live cartridges and one empty cartridge were recovered. 3. Mrs. Pawar, learned counsel for the Applicant urged that since the two associates of the Applicant who were also arrested on the spot have been enlarged on bail, the Applicant also deserves to be enlarged on, bail. She also urged that the Applicant is in jail since 25-2-1999 and no date in his trial has been fixed. She contended that he has been punished sufficiently inasmuch as, as a consequence of the injuries which he suffered on account of P.S.I. Chandan Shive firing at him he has been hospitalised for three months. She finally submitted that bearing in mind the ultimate sentence which the Applicant was likely to be awarded this is a fit case I wherein he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. I have reflected over her submissions and I am constrained to observe that I do not find any merit in them. I may straightaway mention that there can be no parity between the case of the Applicant and that of the two co-accused persons who have been granted bail because the former fired at P.S.I. Chandan Shive and the latter have not been assigned any overt-acts. I may straightaway mention that there can be no parity between the case of the Applicant and that of the two co-accused persons who have been granted bail because the former fired at P.S.I. Chandan Shive and the latter have not been assigned any overt-acts. At the same time I make no bones in observing that normally in a case under Section 307, I.P.C., if the accused is in jail for about 17 months, as is the case here. I am inclined to grant bail. But. I wish to make it clear that offences like life cannot be categorised in water-tight compartments, some warranting the grant of bail others not. In the ultimate analysis the answer to the question whether bail should be granted in a given case would not depend on the offence simplicitor but on its gravity. An offence under the same section, which is pregnant with gravity would not warrant the grant of bail but would devoid of it. 5. In the instant case I find that the Applicant was not only bold enough to extort money from a businessman but when being asked by the complainant to stop he had the temerity to fire at him providentially resulting in his escaping unhurt. The act of the Applicant in firing at a police Sub-Inspector while he was discharging his duty is certainly a grave one. If courts are soft in granting bail in such cases members of the police personnel and public servants would shy from performing their duties. Prima facie the circumstance that the Applicant was apprehended on the spot with injuries on his person, in my view is an inbuilt guarnatee of the truthfulness of the prosecution case. For the above reasons I reject this bail Application. Be that as it may, the painful reality remains that the major offence for which the Applicant is being prosecuted is one under Section 307. I.P.C. Bearing that in mind and the ultimate sentence which the court usually awards in the event of conviction in such an offence I expedite his trial and direct the judge seized of it to dispose of the same within 9 months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. In computing this period of 9 months adjournments taken by the defence shall be excluded and those taken by the prosecution shall be included. In computing this period of 9 months adjournments taken by the defence shall be excluded and those taken by the prosecution shall be included. The learned trial judge should ensure that the trial is disposed of during, the time limit specified by me. In case for no fault of the Applicant his trial does not conclude within the stipulated time he would be at liberty to apply again for bail. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are only relevant to the disposal of this Application and would not influence the trial judge in the decision of the trial. A true copy of this order duly attested by the Shirestedar of the court shall be handed over to the learned A.P.P. today and sent by the office by tomorrow to the concerned court. Application dismissed with directions to expedite trial.