Disposed¶6

Ravindra Subhash Varpe v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2025BA/2816/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adjournment order, Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Bail Application No. 2816 of 2024; Ravindra Subhash Varpe v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.; S. M. Modak, J.; decision dated 12 December 2025; stand over 09 January 2026; arguing counsel Aniket Nikam unavailable (Supreme Court); dilatory tactics objection by APP Tanveer Khan and appointed advocate Komal Sinha; last chance granted 03.09.2025; charge not framed; defence advocate not appearing before trial court; transcript not prepared; pendrive seizure panchnama page no. 89; copy of order to trial court; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Matter stood over (adjourned) to 09th January 2026; copy of the order to be informed to the trial court. No substantive relief decided. ¶6

Ravindra Subhash Varpe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Matter stood over (adjourned) to 09th January 2026; copy of the order to be informed to the trial court. No substantive relief decided.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to consider the submission that the transcript (relating to the pendrive seizure panchnama, page no. 89) is not prepared, for two reasons: the point can be agitated before the trial court, and if the transcript is required and not prepared, this ground can be taken by the Applicant during arguments.

¶4

Key takeaways

The Court accommodated the Applicant because these matters were assigned to it that day only, and recorded its expectation that the learned Advocate representing the Applicant before the trial court is supposed to co-operate with the trial court.ratio¶5
The Court only recorded the submissions and made no observations, because delay in trial was not a ground taken in this Court.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), S. M. Modak, J., 12 December 2025: Bail Application No. 2816 of 2024, Ravindra Subhash Varpe v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., stood over to 09 January 2026. When the matter was called out, it was submitted that arguing counsel Mr. Aniket Nikam was busy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and adjournment was sought; the learned APP and the appointed advocate for Respondent No. 2 objected that the Applicant was resorting to dilatory tactics, noting that a last chance had been granted on 03.09.2025 and that charge could not be framed before the trial court because the defence advocate was not appearing. The Court declined to consider the submission that the transcript was not prepared (with reference to the pendrive seizure panchnama on page no. 89), holding that the point can be agitated before the trial court or taken up by the Applicant during arguments. As the matters were assigned to it that day only, the Court accommodated the Applicant, expected the Applicant's trial-court advocate to co-operate with the trial court, recorded the submissions without making observations (trial delay not being a ground taken in this Court), and directed that a copy of the order be informed to the trial court.

¶1

14. BA 2816 OF 2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2816 OF 2024

¶5

Ravindra Subhash Varpe …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. …Respondents

¶6

Mr Vivek Arote a/w Adv. Akshay Dingale i/by Adv. Sumit Patil, for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Komal Sinha , appointed advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶8

CORAM: S. M. MODAK, J. DATED: 12^th DECEMBER 2025.

¶9

PC:-

¶10

No one is present in the first session.

¶11

In second session, when matter is called out, it is submitted that arguing counsel Mr. Aniket Nikam is busy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Adjournment is sought.

¶12

Learned APP and learned appointed Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that dilatory tactics on behalf of the Applicant. It is true on 03.09.2025, last chance was granted by this Court. According to the Respondent, delay is also before the trial court, because the defence advocate is not appearing. That is why, charge could not be framed.

¶13

Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMAKSHITIJ KSHITIJ YELKARDate: Seema YELKAR 2025.12.15 14:06:48 +0530

¶14

Page 1 of 2 12^th DECEMBER 2025

¶15

14. BA 2816 OF 2024.DOC

¶16

There is submission that the transcript is not prepared. My attention is invited to the pendrive seizure panchnama, on page no. 89. I am not considering this submission for two reasons:-

¶17

a) This can be agitated before the trial court.

¶18

b) If transcript is required and not prepared, this ground can be taken by the Applicant, during arguments.

¶19

Considering the fact that these matters are assigned to me today only, I am accommodating the Applicant. It is expected that the learned Advocate who represents the Applicant before the trial court is supposed to co-operate the trial court. I am only recording the submission and not making any observations, because it is submitted that delay in trial is not ground taken in this court. Copy of this order be informed to the trial court.

¶20

6. Stand over to 09^th January 2026 .

¶21

Seema

¶22

Page 2 of 2 12^th DECEMBER 2025

Ravindra Subhash Varpe v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Subhash Varpe v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shoieb Haider Khan @ Shoieb Pathan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd Imran Daraj Khan vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandip Ganpat Chawan vs Union of India and Anr.

Sandip Chintaman Samant vs State of Maharashtra

Siraj Mumtaj Khan vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajid Jahid Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra