Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for v. Bhadane, APP for
Legal Reasoning
BA.1932.2024-5-dated 08.08.2023 cancelled above order which was in favour ofpresent applicant passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge inBail Application No.634 of 2022. Papers placed on record further show that order dated13.02.2024 of this court rejecting bail of present applicant and co-accused, was questioned by co-accused Vijay, against whom there aresimilar allegations, before Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Cri.) DiaryNo.56433 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by order dated03.01.2025.8.Now, present application admittedly is successive bailapplication and the fundamental ground pressed into service is longincarceration and no possibility of trial coming to an end. 9.This court in view of above ground of long incarcerationhas called report from the learned trial Judge to report currentstatus, proposed calendar and approximately how much time learnedtrial Judge would require for conclusion of trial. Report dated22.04.2025 is received by this court, wherein, learned trial Judgehas enumerated the stages through which Sessions Case No. 620 of2023 passed i.e. said case being transferred to learned Judge on13.09.2024 and matter was posted for arguments on bail applicationfiled by accused no.1 vide Exh.34 and the same was decided on BA.1932.2024-6-19.09.2024. Thereafter, learned Judge has reported about dischargeapplication filed by accused no.5 (Exh.27) being posted forarguments, wherein said accused allegedly sought 2 to 3adjournments and finally it was decided on 05.12.2024 and on thesame day, charge was framed against accused Nos.1 to 4. Thus,charge is apparently framed in December 2024. From the report, itemerges that, on 07.04.2025 Special P.P. Shri S. P. Mundwadkarcaused appearance and tendered documents, however, accused hadnot filed say over it and matter was posted on 22.04.2025, butlearned counsel for accused had remained absent. Even accused werenot produced from the jail and next date is 30.04.2025 i.e. in nextweek itself. Learned trial court has also conveyed that, trial courtwould take its own time for conclusion and that no specific time canbe given. However, learned trial Judge undertook to make sincereefforts in view of accused persons to be in jail. It is further reportedthat accused are tendering applications and are not filing say on theapplication tendered for admission of documents as per section 330of B.N.S.S. 10.Thus, what is emerging from above report of learned trialJudge is that charge is framed on 05.12.2024. In spite of prosecutiontendering application on 07.04.2025 under section 330 of B.N.S.S.,say of accused has not been given. Therefore, prosecution cannot be BA.1932.2024-7-solely blamed for slow progress of trial. Even otherwise in view ofundertaking by learned trial Judge that it would make sincere effortto conclude the trial and that accused are preferring application forbail, discharge and are surprisingly refraining from tendering say onthe application under section 330 of B.N.S.S, this court is not inclinedto extend benefit on the ground of long pre-trial incarceration. Hence,the following order is passed :-ORDERThe bail application stands rejected. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale
Arguments
BA.1932.2024-1-IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 1932 OF 2024WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4543 OF 2024Manoj Nanasaheb Bhalekar, Age : 32 years, Occu. : Agri.,R/o. Nipani, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad… Applicants VersusThe State of Maharashtra… Respondent.…..Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant.Mr. C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent – State.Mr. P. P. More, Advocate for Applicant-Informant in APPLN/4543/2024 (Assist to APP).…..CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON :25 APRIL 2025PRONOUNCED ON :29 APRIL 2025 ORDER : 1.Instant regular bail application arises out of Crime No.0269 of 2023 registered at Chikalthana Police Station, DistrictAurangabad for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148,149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 and 427 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2.Criminal Application No. 4543 of 2024 is allowed. Theoriginal informant is permitted to assist the learned A.P.P.3.At the outset, learned counsel pointed out that, present BA.1932.2024-2-application is successive bail application as previous applicationswere turned down. He would submitted that, applicant is arrested inabove crime on 06.07.2023 and he is behind bars since more thanone and half year. He claims that, recently it was learnt that,Investigating Officer had collected CCTV footage of GHATI hospital,and therefore, as same was not supplied to applicant, he was requiredto apply for handing over copy to him and learned trial court by orderdated 10.06.2024 directed Investigating Officer to supply the copy ofCCTV footage dated 05.07.2023. That, panchanama of contents ofCCTV footages are drawn, which clearly show that present applicantwas in the GHATI premises along with his friend in connection withtreatment of friend, who had allegedly consumed poison. Therefore,there is a plea of alibi available to the applicant. Now, investigation isover and charge sheet is filed way back in September 2023 itself. Hepointed out that for almost more than one and half year applicant isbehind bars. That, trial is proceeding as snail pace and therefore onthe ground of long pre-trial incarceration, he urges for grant of bail 4.Learned APP opposed on the ground that serious offenceis committed. That, applicant has criminal antecedents. That,deceased suffered brutal attack and as many as 11 to 12 injuries areinflicted. That, role is also crystallized in the statement of witnesses.That, there are eye witness account and in view of serious crime BA.1932.2024-3-being committed and trial being at the stage of evidence, learned APPopposes for grant of bail.5.Learned counsel for informant also opposed by pointingout that present application is successive bail application. That,matter had traveled up to Hon’ble Apex Court and relief was refused.Copy of the same is also placed on record. He further pointed outthat, there are four eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence, out ofthem Bhaskar and Santosh, who are injured. Supplementarystatement of informant finds name of present applicant. That, theirstatements under sections 161 and 164 are consistent. He furtherpointed out that, overt act is clearly attributed in the FIR. That,there is recovery of blood stained clothes and he also emphasizedabout criminal antecedents of applicant by pointing out that threecrimes are registered against him. For all above reasons, he tooopposes bail application.6.Heard. Perused the FIR. FIR is at the instance of oneRatnakar Keshavrao Hiwale. He reported that on 05.07.2023, itbeing his birthday, he, one Santosh Haribhau Hiwale, RamchandraNarayan Hiwale, Vaibhav Ratnakar Hiwale, Bhaskar KadubaUddange, Sangar Ashok Gayke and Datta Khaire went to celebratebirthday at Hotel Kartiki, Pandhari Pimpalgaon and after taking BA.1932.2024-4-meals, while they were returning at around 10:15 p.m., near NipaniPhata their vehicle was suddenly intercepted and therefore Sagarquestioned the said vehicle driver, resulting into heated exchange ofwords. While they were further proceedings towards Aurangabad inMaruti S-cross, one person smashed rear glass of their vehicle and sovehicle was halted. It is reported that, at that time, Sagar questionedincumbents of the S-cross vehicle, namely Manoj Bhalekar, that timeMukund Bhalekar, Rameshwar Gaware, Vikas Ghodke and oneunknown person alighted, questioned and hurled abuses on filthylanguage. That time, Rameshwar Gaware stabbed Sagar Gayke withknife, Ramchandra Hiwale on waist and ear and attempted to commitmurder. That time, Manoj Bhalekaer (present applicant), MukundBhalekaer, Vikas Ghodke assaulted Santosh Hiwale and BhaskarUddange by means of iron rod, whereas unknown person gave fistblows to informant, Datta Khaire and Vaibhav Hiwale. Hence, theabove report, resulting into registration of crime bearing no.0269 of2023.7.Papers placed on record show that, present applicant wasbeneficiary of bail at the hands of learned Additional Sessions Judgedated 18.04.2022, however such order seems to have been takenexception to by both State as well as informant by filing applicationfor cancellation of Bail bearing No. 83 of 2022. This court vide order