Dismissed¶21

Vijay Digambhar Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Aug 2025BA/662/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vijay Digambhar Pawar v. State of Maharashtra; Bail Application No. 662 of 2025; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Arun R. Pedneker, J.; decided 11.08.2025; Crime No.0070/2023, Anandnagar Police Station, Osmanabad; offences under Sections 302, 201, 323, 109 read with 34 IPC; prolonged incarceration; delayed trial; health condition; earlier bail applications BA/1280/2023 and No.1265/2024 dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to seek expedition of trial before trial court not availed; bail application dismissed with liberty to revive after one year.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted. Liberty to file an appropriate application before the trial court for expedited hearing on health grounds substantiated by record; failing which, liberty to revive the bail application before this Court after one (01) year on the ground of delayed trial.

Vijay Digambhar Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in custody since arrest on 19.04.2023 in Crime No.0070/2023 for offences under Sections 302, 201, 323, 109 read with 34 IPC, should be released on bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delayed trial. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The liberty granted by order dated 06.08.2024 to seek an expedited trial on account of the applicant's health condition was not availed; the application before the trial court was not filed.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The present bail application is dismissed, with liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the trial court for expedited hearing by pointing out his health condition and substantiating it with necessary record.

¶21

Key takeaways

If the application for expeditious hearing is not filed, the applicant is granted liberty to revive the bail application before this Court after one (01) year on the ground of delayed trial.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Third bail application by accused arrested on 19.04.2023 in Crime No.0070/2023 (Anandnagar Police Station, Osmanabad) for offences under Sections 302, 201, 323, 109 read with 34 IPC — Two earlier applications (BA/1280/2023 and Bail Application No.1265/2024) were dismissed as withdrawn, the latter with liberty dated 06.08.2024 to move the trial court for expeditious trial on health grounds — That liberty was never availed — Present application founded on prolonged incarceration and delayed trial, with alternate prayer for expedition of trial, dismissed — Liberty granted to file an expedite-trial application before the trial court substantiating health condition with record, and, if not filed, to revive the bail application before this Court after one (01) year on the ground of delayed trial — Held by Arun R. Pedneker, J., High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, 11.08.2025.

¶1

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:21808

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

52 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 662 OF 2025

¶6

VIJAY DIGAMBHAR PAWAR

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶9

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Abhijit S. More APP for Respondent/State: Mr. G. O. Wattamwar

¶10

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 11.08.2025

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶13

2] The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrested on 19.04.2023 in connection with Crime No.0070/2023, dated 14.02.2023, registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Osmanabad, District Osmanabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 323, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

3] In earlier BA/1280/2023, this court had expressed disinclination for grant of bail and, consequently, the applicant withdrew the bail application, on 11.08.2023 i.e. the application was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶15

Thereafter, in another subsequent Bail

¶16

¶17

¶18

Application No.1265/2024, this court by order dated 06.08.2024, permitted the applicant to withdraw the application with liberty to file an application before the trial court for expeditious trial, as the submission was made in terms of the applicant’s health condition and the application was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶19

Now, third bail application is filed on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delayed trial and, also, made alternate prayer of request to the trial court to expedite the trial.

¶20

4] However, from the record it appears that, when the liberty was granted to the applicant by order dated 06.08.2024 to seek an expedited hearing of the trial by filing an application before the trial court, seeking prayer of expedited hearing on account of the health condition of the applicant, the said application is not filed.

¶21

5] As such, the present application is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the trial court for expedited hearing by pointing out his health condition and substantiating the same with necessary record. If such an application is filed the trial court would pass an order in accordance with law.

¶22

In the event that the application is not filed for expeditious hearing, the applicant is also granted liberty to revive the bail application before this court after one (01) year on the ground of delayed trial.

¶23

¶24

¶25

6] The Bail Application stands disposed of

¶26

accordingly.

¶27

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶28

marathe