Dismissed¶13

Chandrakant Alias Dadu Sunil Athawale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Oct 2025BA/440/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chandrakant Alias Dadu Sunil Athawale v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 440 of 2025, Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), decided 04-10-2025 by Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J. Keywords: bail application dismissed as withdrawn; undertrial in custody 5 years 11 months; right to bail on speedy-trial grounds; expeditious conclusion of sessions trial within three months; Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 322); Advocate Nilesh S. Ghanekar; APP P.P. Dawalkar.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief on merits; leave to withdraw granted, with directions to the trial court to conclude the sessions trial expeditiously and preferably within three months. ¶13

Chandrakant Alias Dadu Sunil Athawale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief on merits; leave to withdraw granted, with directions to the trial court to conclude the sessions trial expeditiously and preferably within three months.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether leave should be granted to withdraw the bail application, the Court having expressed disinclination to allow it. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

Leave was granted to withdraw the bail application and the application stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months.

¶21

Key takeaways

Directing the trial court to note, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh, that an applicant behind bars for about 6 years has a right to bail on the ground that the trial is not concluded, on the right of speedy trial (content attributed to the cited Supreme Court precedent, transmitted by way of direction).ratio¶20
A sessions case, once started, ought not to be stopped - stated rhetorically in support of the direction for continuous and expeditious trial.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application No. 440 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.; 4 October 2025): The applicant, an accused in custody for five years and 11 months in a sessions case in which only the formal evidence of the investigating officer remained to be recorded, sought bail. After the Court expressed disinclination, leave to withdraw the application was granted on instructions and the application stood dismissed as withdrawn. The Court nonetheless directed the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months, observing that a session, once started, should not be stopped, and further directed the trial court to note, per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322, that an accused behind bars for about six years has a right to bail where the trial is not concluded, on the ground of the right to speedy trial.

Chandrakant Alias Dadu Sunil Athawale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Alias Dadu Sunil Athawale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rumalya Checharya Alias Shesarya Pawra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajsing Alias Kuldipsing Shamsing Kalani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Ganesh Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Swapnil Sukhdeo Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrikant Dnyanoba Gitte Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Rajvi Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another