High Court
Legal Reasoning
1BA.700.2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.BAIL APPLICATION NO. 700 OF 2025Ajay S/o Rajendra Mhaske.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra.… Respondent...Mr. Abhaykumar Dilip Ostwal, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent / State....CORAM :SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.RESERVED ON:08th September, 2025.PRONOUNCED ON :26th September, 2025. O R D E R:1Heard both the sides. 2This application is filed for grant of regular bail inconnection with Crime No.0615 of 2023, registered with Shirdi PoliceStation, District Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). 3The informant averred in the report that he is residingalongwith his wife and sons. He is a labourer. His daughter Savita
Legal Reasoning
2BA.700.2025.odtwas married in the year 2013 with one Sunil Manik Battise, resident ofNashik and that out of the said wedlock, she begotten two children.When Savita was residing at Nashik with her husband and children, alove relationship was developed between Savita and the applicant.Therefore, his daughter Savita left her husband and children and wentto reside with the applicant. The applicant wanted to marry withanother woman. Therefore, he used to abuse, threaten and beatSavita. 4The informant further averred that on 18th November,2022, the applicant quarreled with Savita and told her that he wantedto perform marriage with another woman and that she should leave hishouse. The applicant abused and beaten her by kicks and fists blowsand threatened to kill her. Therefore, she lodged a complaint againstthe applicant at Shirdi Police Station in respect of the said incident on19th November, 2022. 5 The informant further averred that on 16th July, 2023,when he was at his house, his sister-in-law made a phone call to himand informed him that Savita has been murdered and that her deadbody was kept at Shri Saibaba Hospital, Shirdi, Ahmednagar.Thereafter, the informant alongwith his family members went to thePolice Station, where one Sanjay Bhopale was also present. At that 3BA.700.2025.odttime, said Sanjay informed him that in the morning Savita was foundlying in a pool of blood on the road at Bhopale Vasti. When saidSanjay made a phone call to the applicant, the applicant informed himthat he had committed murder of Savita and had gone to the PoliceStation. Thereafter, the report was lodged. 6The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that theapplicant is falsely implicated in the crime. The applicant has roots inthe society and he will not flee away from the trial. Trial will take a longperiod. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. There is no prima-facie material against the applicant, as there is no eye-witness and thecase is based on circumstantial evidence. 7The learned counsel for the applicant further submittedthat the charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is behind barssince 2022. He prayed for granting regular bail on the ground of adelayed trial. For that purpose, he is relying upon the daily-sheet ofthe sessions case, awaiting incriminating articles / Muddemal. Heprayed to allow the application. 8The learned counsel for the applicant is relying on thefollowing authorities:- 4BA.700.2025.odta)In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State ofMaharashtra and another, (2024) 9 Supreme CourtCases 813, in which Honourable Supreme Court heldthat, there is violation of speedy trial and there is noprobability of conclusion of trial and therefore, bail wasgranted. b)In Athar Parwez Vs. Union of India, 2024 SCCOnLine SC 3762, in which Honourable Supreme Courtheld that, when trial is not likely to complete soon, theaccuse has a right to bail. c)In Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another,2024 SCC OnLine SC 4354, in which HonourableSupreme Court held that, inordinate delay for conclusionof trial infringe the right of speedy trial of accused underArticle 21 of the Constitution of India. d)In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40, inwhich Honourable Supreme Court held that,documentary evidence is voluminous, trial is likely totake considerable time, the applicant has right to bail.e)In Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement,2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, in which HonourableSupreme Court held that, a long period of incarcerationrunning for around 17 months and the trial even nothaving been commenced, applicant has right to speedytrial, bail granted. 5BA.700.2025.odtf)In Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India Through theDirectorate of Enforcement, (2024) 9 Supreme CourtCases 787, in which Honourable Supreme Court heldthat, bail is rule and jail is exception. g)In Babu Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1Supreme Court Cases 579, in which HonourableSupreme Court held that, judicial discretion is to beexercised while granting and refusing bail. 9The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicant is involved in the seriouscrime of murder of a woman, who believed him and left her husbandand children. The applicant himself went to the police station aftercommission of murder of Savita. There is strong evidence against theapplicant, particularly, the evidence of his conduct that after theincident he went to the police station and told that he committed amurder of Savita. Postmortem report shows that the cause of death is“death due to stab injuries”. The knife is seized at the instance of theapplicant. His clothes having blood stains are also seized. The sandalhaving blood stains is also seized at the instance of the applicant. Theapplicant is involved in the serious crime of murder. If the applicant isreleased on bail, he will pressurize the prosecution witnesses andtamper with the evidence. It is prayed to reject the application. 6BA.700.2025.odt10Perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the report and theseizure Panchanama. It is fact that after commission of murder ofSavita, the applicant himself went to the police station and told that hehad committed a murder of Savita. In such fact situation, if theapplicant is released on bail, certainly he will pressurize theprosecution witnesses and tamper with evidence. 11As far as daily-sheet of the sessions case is concerned,specific directions can be given to the Trial Court to dispose of thecase within six months. However, merely because there is delaycaused for conducting the trial, considering the serious nature of thecrime, the applicant cannot be released on bail. Nobody will disputethe ratio of above authorities (cited supra) on behalf of the applicant,however, facts in this case are different and the applicant is behind thebars for more than two years. Therefore, directions for expeditioushearing of trial is proper. Hence, the said case law are not relied upon.The application deserves to be rejected. The bail application isrejected with the following directions:-I)The Trial Court is directed to decide the case asexpeditiously as possible, in any case within six months.Needless to mention that it is a sessions trial and word“sessions” means once it is started it shall not be stopped 7BA.700.2025.odtuntil it is concluded.II)For that purpose, the Trial Court is expected to keep the datetwice or thrice in a week and conclude the trial accordingly.III)The Trial Court is further directed not to grant adjournmentsif it is prayed on behalf of either the prosecution or thedefence unless there is extreme urgency or reasonableground. If the accused are not produced, the Trial Court maycall the jail authority and escort party and warn them bypassing an order accordingly by giving one opportunity tothem to produce the accused i.e. under trial prisonerscontinuously. If it is not followed then the Trial Court mayproceed against these authorities for not following the orderof the legal authority of public servant as per the applicableprovisions of Chapter X of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 i.e.Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. If theadvocates for accused or the public prosecutor are notcooperating with the Court for conducting the trial asexpeditiously as possible, the Trial Court may impose heavycosts on the concerned accused.[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga