Dismissed

Vishal Mangesh Yadav v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Apr 2024BA/2382/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding a murder charge, the High Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for over six years. Despite this, the court decided not to enlarge the applicant on bail, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; liberty granted to apply for bail after one year if trial does not substantially proceed.

Vishal Mangesh Yadav Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:18438

¶2

5-ba-2382-23.doc

¶3

Diksha Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2382 OF 2023

¶6

VISHAL MANGESH YADAV ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶7

Adv. V. P. Kakade i/b. Adv. Mrunal Jadhav for the applicant. Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : APRIL 22, 2024

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶12

2. This is an application for bail in respect of First Information Report (FIR) No.I-128/2018 registered with Nalasopara Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter “the IPC”, for short).

¶13

3. The FIR was registered on 6/4/2018. The date of the incident is 6/4/2018. The accusation is that the applicant along with other co-accused killed the deceased. The deceased was killed in a brutal manner. As per post-mortem notes, there are several injuries on the person of the

¶14

1/3

¶15

Diksha Rane 5-ba-2382-23.doc

¶16

deceased. The applicant was armed with an axe. He assaulted the deceased on his vital parts. There was previous enmity between the applicant and the deceased. The axe was recovered from the applicant. There is an eyewitness to the incident.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in custody for more than six years. It is submitted that only charge is framed, and the trial will take long time to conclude.

¶18

5. On the previous occasion, the first Bail Application bearing No.2386/2021 filed by the applicant was allowed to be withdrawn by an order dated 6/1/2023. The trial was expedited. It was observed that if the trial does not substantially proceed, liberty to file a fresh application after six months.

¶19

6. Though the applicant is in custody for more than six years, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to presently enlarge the applicant on bail on the ground of long incarceration. The trial Court is requested to conclude the trial preferably within a period of one year from today.

2/3

5-ba-2382-23.doc

Diksha Rane

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant will co-operate with the trial Court and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. The prosecution to cooperate with the trial Court.

¶24

8. Liberty to apply for bail after sometime depending on the progress of the trial.

¶25

9. With these observations, the application is disposed of.

¶26

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶27

3/3

¶28

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/04/2024 17:16:44

Vishal Mangesh Yadav v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Mangesh Yadav v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonali Deepak Gaware Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sukhdeo Bhaurao Ohol Vs the State of Maharashtra

Usha Popat Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Satish Kshirsagar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhoomi Rahul Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suhas Prabhakar Gupte, Vs the State of Maharashtra