Dismissed

Dinesh Raosaheb Wayse v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jul 2013BA/1052/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard a bail application under Criminal Procedure Code. While considering arguments regarding trial delays and the release of other co-accused, the court noted the applicant's attributed active role in a brutal assault compared to others with lesser roles. It held that granting bail was not fit in the circumstances, especially given the rejection of another co-accused's bail and the

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial to be expedited to complete within four months.

Dinesh Raosaheb Wayse Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

903-BA-1052-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1052 OF 2013

¶5

DINESH RAOSAHEB WAYSE )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Sachin Deokar Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mrs.Shilpa Gajare – Dhumal APP for the State.

¶10

Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil i/b. Mr.Prashant S. Hagare Advocate for the Original Complainant.

¶11

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 16^th JULY, 2013.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 Heard Mr.Sachin Deokar, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs.Shilpa Gajare – Dhumal, the learned APP for the State, and Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil, the learned counsel for the first informant, who was permitted to appear and make submissions opposing the grant of bail.

¶14

avk 1/3

¶15

903-BA-1052-2013

¶16

2 There are two main points canvassed in support of the prayer for bail. The first is, that, while granting bail to the co-accused Vinod Mane, this court had directed the trial to be expedited and completed within the period of nine (9) months from the date of the said order, i.e., 1.10.2012. It is submitted that the period of nine months is over and that the trial has not yet commenced.

¶17

3 The second contention in support of the bail application, as taken is, that, some of the co-accused in this case have been released on bail, and that, the case of the applicant being identical, he also be released on bail.

¶18

4 I have carefully considered the matter.

¶19

5 I find that some of the accused, who were released on bail by the court of Sessions, have been attributed a lesser role as per the case of the investigating agency. One Vinod Mane was released on bail by this court observing certain peculiar features of the case, so far as it relates to him. I am informed that the application filed by another coaccused – Sunil Mane – has been rejected by this court.

¶20

6 The applicant has been attributed an active role in the assault. The assault is of a quite brutal nature, as is appearing from the injuries sustained by the victim. Under these circumstances, particularly, when the co-accused Sunil Mane has also not been released on bail, I do not think it fit to release the applicant on bail.

¶21

avk 2/3

¶22

903-BA-1052-2013

¶23

7 This is particularly so, because, it appears from the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge that the delay in holding the trial is primarily due to the accused persons themselves; but even if this aspect is ignored, it clearly appears that the case is ready for trial and the witnesses have already been summoned.

¶24

8 Under these circumstances, it would not be proper to release the applicant on bail.

¶25

9 The application is rejected.

¶26

10 The trial court shall expedite the trial and endeavour to complete it, as early as possible.

¶27

11 Liberty to the applicant to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court.

¶28

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶29

avk 3/3

Dinesh Raosaheb Wayse v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Raosaheb Wayse v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Bhairu Khot Vs Dastgir Badshaha Khalifa and Anr.

Dr Ranvir Kumar Bindeswari Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sudhir Vasant Karnataki Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ananda Manku Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shabbu Rauf Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Siraj Ahmed Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra