High Court

Legal Reasoning

( 1 ) crap530.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2025Rama @ Ramu Shivaji JadhavVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra & Anr.Mr. Avinash N. Barhate Patil, Advocate for the appellant.Ms. M.N. Ghanekar, APP for the respondent-State.Ms.Tanishka P. Chavan, Advocate for respondent No.2.ANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2025Shoyab Shabbir Shaikh and Anr.VERSUSThe State of Maharashtra & Anr.Mr.S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant.Ms. M.N. Ghanekar, APP for the respondent-State.Ms. Karishma Sanjay Sarin, Advocate for respondent No.2.ANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2025Yogesh @ Gotya Sarjerao PardheVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra & Anr.Mr. Avinash N. Barhate Patil, Advocate for the appellant.Ms. M.N. Ghanekar, APP for the respondent-State.Ms. Karishma Sanjay Sarin, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:20.08.2025PRONOUNCED ON:18.09.2025 ( 2 ) crap530.25ORDER :-01.All these appeals are arising out of same trial and thereforeare taken together. The appellants are accused in Sessions Case No. 62of 2015. They have approached this Court seeking bail on the ground ofdelay in trial. Their earlier appeals are rejected by this Court. Nochange in circumstances is pointed out except delay. The matters are,therefore, being considered only on the ground of delay.02.Facts in short giving rise to the prosecution are that an FIRcame to be lodged in Shirdi Police Station for the offence punishableunder sections 302, 201, 363, 364, 366, 143, 148, 149 of the IndianPenal Code and under sections 3(1)(iii)(x) and 3(i)(v) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Presentappellants are accused in the said crime. The FIR came to be lodged byone Satish Gaikwad on 16.05.2015 with the Police Station. It is allegedin the statement that on 16.05.2015, he had been to Shirdi for marriageof sister of his friend. While going, he was called by one Sagar.Thereafter, three of them went on motorcycle. First they went to oneBeer-bar. At around 1.30 a.m. they had a beer. At that time Vishal,Rupesh, Somnath, Sunil and 2-3 unknown persons were also havingbeer. At that time, mobile of Sagar rang in laud voice with a ringtone ( 3 ) crap530.25having lyrics of late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Vishal, therefore, askedas to whose mobile is that. On that Sagar told his name. On that allthese persons assaulted Sagar with fist blows. Vishal took beer bottleand banged it on the head of Sagar. The informant tried to pacify.Tushar asked him his name. On telling his name, even the informantwas assaulted by the accused persons. They, thereafter, took theinformant on motorcycle. They also took Sagar with them on anothermother-cycle. Other vehicle went towards Savlivihir. Other accused leftthe informant there itself. On this, the complaint was lodged.03.Supplementary statements came to be recorded on19.05.2015. It is stated in the supplementary statement that afterearlier incident the informant and his friend went in search of Sagar.They were informed that Sagar was taken to one Rui Shivar. They wentto Rui Shivar and thereafter to Pimpalwadi Shivar. He was not foundeven there. They, therefore, went further towards Puntamba road. Theyfound a mob near Rui to Shingve road. There they found Sagar in neckedcondition, fallen on the ground. He was dead. It is thus alleged thatSagar was murdered by the accused persons as mobile ringtone was inthe name of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. He also alleged offence under theprovisions of Atrocities Act. ( 4 ) crap530.2504.On the basis of this, crime came to be registered. Charge-sheet came to be filed. Trial started. In the Trial Court, accused appliedfor bail. Their applications for bail came to be rejected. Thereafter,accused Kiran filed Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2024. Accused Rupeshfiled Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2024. Both the appeals came to beallowed by this Court by order dated 25.09.2024 on certain conditions.Other appeals came to be rejected/withdrawn.05.The appellants have again approached this Court seeking bailon the ground that still the Trial is not concluded.06.Learned Advocate Mr. Chapalgaonkar for the appellantsvehemently argued that the appellant in Appeal No. 100 of 2025 came tobe arrested on 17.05.2015. Other accused came to be arrested on23.05.2015. He submits that in the meantime, the accused hasapproached this Court. Appellant No.2 in Appeal No. 100 of 2025 againapplied for bail. He also preferred appeal bearing No. 1056 of 2019along with other co-accused. The appeals were, however, disposed offdirecting the Sessions Court to dispose off the Trial within a period of sixmonths. Even, thereafter, the trial is not concluded. The appellants ( 5 ) crap530.25again preferred bail applications. By common order below below Exh.451 and 459 in the Sessions Court, same were rejected. The appeals oftwo accused, namely, Kiran and Rupesh are allowed by this Court andthey are released on bail. He submits that thus on the ground of parityalso present appellants deserve to be released on bail.07.Learned APP submits that because of the proceedings in theHigh Court, file was called in the High Court and for three years, the TrialCould not show any progress as file was in the High Court. On merits itis submitted that there is strong motive and there is also theory of lastseen together. On that count, the Trial Court and this Court rightlyrejected the earlier applications/appeals. It is submitted by the learnedAPP that for delay in the Trial, the accused themselves are responsible.She drawn attention of this Court to the panchanama and observationsby the Sessions Court from order below application Exhs. 451 and 459filed by Vishal and Somnath. It is submitted that on various occasionsthe appellants have filed appeals of similar nature. During the pandemicperiod of Covid 19, the accused persons were released on temporarybail. While on bail, they repeated the crime and committed variousoffences which are registered at different police stations. Learned APPthus submits that no case is made out for grant of bail. It is because of ( 6 ) crap530.25proceeding filed by accused Yogesh, there was delay as he wasabsconding for six months from 02.06.2024 by running away from thecustody, while being taken to Court. As regards Somnath and Shoyab, itis submitted that when they were on bail, they repeatedly breached theconditions. They did not report the police station regularly. Their conductwhile on bail is also pointed out.08.The learned APP in Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2025 and 223of 2025 invited attention to the criminal antecedents of the appellants.She submits that when the appellants were on bail, family of theinformant was receiving threats. The Court has already observed thatthey are habitual offenders. She thus submits that no bail be granted.09.This Court has seen various orders in various proceedingsfiled before this Court. It is seen from such orders that the conduct ofthe present appellants is also a reason for delay in the Trial. LearnedAPP rightly pointed out Roznama dated 11.08.2025 and 19.08.2025 toshow the conduct of the accused person. It is submitted that the trialcould not be completed within a period of six months due to conduct ofthe appellants. ( 7 ) crap530.2510.During the course of arguments, the parties relied uponjudgment Javed Gulam Nahi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra(2024) 9 SCC 813. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtconsidered grant of bail in the cases of Terrorism and Organized Crime,Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Ciourtconsidered mandate of section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. It was a case whereaccused were in custody. The charges were not framed for a long time.In the said case the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future.Though the appellants were facing trial under the provisions of UAP Act,still bail was granted.11.In the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3SCC 713, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered Article 21 r/w part III ofprinciples guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It is held that speedytrial is part of Part III of the Constitution and Article 21 of theConstitution. In that case the Trial was not concluded though theaccused was in custody, though suffered incarnation for significant periodof time. 12.In the present case this Court finds that though accusedpersons are in custody, they were released on bail during Covid period. ( 8 ) crap530.25During that period again offences came to be registered of similarnature. This Court thus finds force in the arguments of the learned APPand learned Advocate appointed for the informant that no case is madeout to grant of bail.13.The trial is not delayed only because of the prosecution. Evenaccused persons are responsible for prolonging the Trial. Considering theabove this Court finds that no case is made out to allow the appeal. TheCriminal Appeals, therefore, stand dismissed.14.Learned Trial Court is expected to finish the Trial within sixmonths from today. If the Trial is not completed within six months, theappellants are at liberty to again approach this Court for bail.15.This Court appreciates the efforts taken by learned Advocatesappointed for the informant. They shall be entitled to fees of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) in each petition, to be paid by High Court LegalServices Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/Sep25/crap530.25