Ganesh Reddy vs the State of Maharashtra

Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 422 of 2021 registered with Chakan Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 324, 504 read with section 34

¶14

of the Indian Penal Code. The said Crime is now registered as

¶15

1 of 5

¶16

Talwalkar

¶17

907.BA4745.2024.odt

¶18

Sessions Case No. 98 of 2022 is committed to the Court of

¶19

Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Rajguru Nagar, District Pune.

¶20

There are 3 accused in the above said crime. Applicant is Accused No. 1, whereas other two accused are juvenile.

¶21

Ms. Parulekar, Learned Advocate for the Applicant had

¶22

made a grievance with regard to the slow progress in the trial of

¶23

Sessions Case No. 98 of 2022, after framing of charge.

¶24

This Court had passed following order on 4^th March, 2025 :

¶25

“1. Learned A.P.P. submits that the case is based on direct evidence. It is submitted that the charge is already framed.

¶26

On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no progress in the trial after framing of the charge. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail for about four years.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, time of six weeks is granted to show progress in the trial. List the application on 28th April, 2025. The prosecution shall endeavour to examine witnesses before the next date or else this Court will be constrained to release the applicant on bail.”

2 of 5

Talwalkar

907.BA4745.2024.odt

Today, when the matter was called out, Ms. Parulekar,

¶32

learned Advocate for the Applicant states that from 4^th March, 2025 till date a single witness has been examined and according to her, there is no progress in the trial. To clarify she submits that the trial is proceeding at a very slow pace. She submits that there are 18 witnesses listed by the prosecution in the present crime. Placing reliance on paragraph-3 of the order dated 4^th March, 2025 she submits that the Applicant presses into service the right to have speedy trial. She submits that the Applicant was arrested on 6^th April, 2021 and he is incarcerated since then.

¶33

Mr. Khan, learned APP for the State, agrees to the factual position of the progress in the trial being slow and the Applicant being incarcerated since 6^th April, 2021. He states that the prosecution would make all endeavours to expedite the trial.

¶34

Considering that the Applicant is incarcerated from the year 2021 and by taking note of slow progress in the trial since framing of charge, further prosecution having examined only one witness since 4^th March, 2025, the Applicant would be justified in

3 of 5

Talwalkar

907.BA4745.2024.odt

pressing into service his right to be enlarged on bail, as he

¶39

cannot continue to be incarcerated as under-trial prisoner, indefinitely. It is almost 4 years 3 months Applicant has been incarcerated.

¶40

Ms. Parulekar relies on the orders passed by this Court in

¶41

in the case of Vikas Chandrakant Patil v/s. The State of Maharashtra¹ and Niklesh Prakash Patil v/s. State of Maharashtra,

¶42

in support of her contention of the Applicant being entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration.

¶43

In view of the above, taking note of the slow progress of the trial, the Applicant would be entitled to bail on the sole ground of his long incarceration.

¶44

Ms. Parulekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant on instructions from the Applicant submits that the Applicant shall not take adjournment in the matter and shall cooperate with the trial. Statement accepted.

¶45

The Applicant is therefore, directed to be released on the

¶46

following conditions :

¶47

1 Bail Application No. 1963 of 2025

4 of 5

Talwalkar

907.BA4745.2024.odt

(a) The Applicant be released on bail in Crime No. 422 of 2021

¶52

registered with Chakan Police Station, Pune on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶53

(b) The Applicant shall appear before the learned Sessions

¶54

Court, Khed as and when date is fixed in Sessions Case No. 98 of 2022, unless exempted.

¶55

(c) Applicant shall not interfere or influence or threaten any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶56

(d) Upon release from the jail, the Applicant shall furnish his residential address with proof alongwith contact details to the Investigating Officer.

¶57

Criminal Bail Application No. 4745 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of on the above terms.

¶58

[ ASHWIN D.BHOBE, J.]

¶59

5 of 5

¶60

Talwalkar

Ganesh Reddy v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bindya Audram Yadav vs State of Maharashtra

Shobhraj Dilip Vaidande vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivannand Bhimraigond Biradar vs the State of Maharashtra

Avi @ Avinash @ Gubya Sunil Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vrushali Vinit Hundekari vs State of Maharashtra

Viki Prashant Pawar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra