Dismissed

Suresh S/O Chindhuji Patrikar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Yavatmal (Rural), Yavatmal

Bombay HC31 Jul 2025BA/682/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in a murder case involving an unlawful assembly. The court rejected the application, finding that delays in framing charges were attributable to adjournments sought by the accused, not the prosecution, and distinguishing the right to speedy trial in the context of serious offences.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suresh S/O Chindhuji Patrikar Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:7384

¶2

449 ba682.25

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.682/2025 Suresh s/o Chindhuji Patrikar

¶6

..vs..

¶7

State of Maharashtra, thr.PSO PS Yavatmal (Rural), Yavatmal

¶8

............................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶9

Shri R.M.Daga, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri Amit Madiwale, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri V.D.Darne, Counsel for the Complainant.

¶10

`CORAM`	`: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.`
`CLOSED ON`	`: 22/07/2025`
`PRONOUNCED ON`	`: 31/07/2025`

¶11

By this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.59/2022 registered with the non-applicant/police station for offences under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 323, 324, and 506

¶12

of the IPC and under Sections 3, 25, and 27, of the Arms
Act.

¶13

2. The applicant came to be arrested on 4.2.2022

¶14

.....2/-

¶15

449 ba682.25

¶16

¶17

and since then he is in jail.

¶18

3.The crime is registered on the basis of report
lodged by Anuprita Diware, who is wife of Sunil (the
deceased). As per her report, there was previous disputes
and enmity amongst the applicant and other co-accused
and the deceased. The disputes were over issue of
management of school and over issue of removal of
encroachment. On 3.2.2022, at 7:30 pm, when she was
sitting in the courtyard along with the deceased and her
son, the applicant along with other co-accused came in
the courtyard and asked the deceased to withdraw
complaint lodged by him to which the deceased refused
and, therefore, co-accused Rohit fired two bullets in air
and, thereafter, towards the deceased. On receiving the
bullet injury, the deceased fell down on the ground and,
thereafter, all the accused assaulted him by means of axe
and iron rods. It is alleged that when the complainant
tried to intervene, the applicant caught hold and assaulted

¶19

.....3/-

¶20

449 ba682.25

¶21

¶22

her by means of axe on her thigh. Due to the injuries
sustained, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. On the
basis of the said report, the police registered the crime
against the applicant.

¶23

4.Earlier two bail applications of the applicant
are rejected by this court.

¶24

5.Now, the present application is filed on ground
of delay in trial.

¶25

6.Heard learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga for the
applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Amit
Madiwale for the State, and learned counsel Shri
V.D.Darne for the complainant.

¶26

7.learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that as far as role of the applicant is concerned, the same
is very limited to the extent of holding the complainant
and, thereafter, other co-accused gave a blow on the thigh
of the complainant by means of axe. Thus, involvement of

¶27

the applicant is not in actual incident. He further

¶28

.....4/-

¶29

449 ba682.25

¶30

¶31

submitted that since the date of arrest i.e. 4.2.2022 the
applicant is behind the bars, charges are not yet framed,
there is delay in trial and, therefore, he be released on
bail.

¶32

8.In support of his contentions, learned counsel

¶33

for the applicant placed reliance on following decisions:

¶34

1. Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.)
No.8523/2024 (Balwinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab and anr), decided by the Hon’ble Apex
Court on 9.9.2024, and

¶35

2. Criminal Application (BA) No.21/2025
(Gurudev Bhimrao Gedam vs. State of Mah)
decided by this court on 27.6.2025.

¶36

He submitted that as right of the applicant of

¶37

speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India is affected, he be released on bail.

¶38

9.Per contra, learned Additional Public

¶39

Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the
complainant strongly opposed the application on ground

¶40

.....5/-

¶41

449 ba682.25

¶42

¶43

that earlier two bail applications on merits are rejected.
The trial is not delayed on account of the prosecution, but
Roznama shows that time to time several applications are
filed by the accused persons and adjournments are sought
for hearing of the said applications. The other co-accused
have also filed discharge applications and, therefore, the
charge could not be framed and the trial is not progressed.
Learned Judge of the trial court itself observed in its order
that now the trial can be proceeded and this court
(District Court) will ensure that the charge is framed at
the earliest and rejected the applications. In view of that,
the application deserves to be rejected.

¶44

In support of his contentions, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State placed reliance
on Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.13378/2024 (X vs.
State of Rajasthan and anr) decided by the Hon’ble Apex
Court on 26.11.2024.

¶45

10.After hearing both the sides and perusing the

¶46

.....6/-

¶47

449 ba682.25

¶48

¶49

chargesheet, it can be seen that immediately after the
incident, the FIR came to be lodged and all the accused
persons including the applicant were named in the FIR.
The complainant and her son are eye witnesses to the
incident and witnesses namely Nikhil Karpate, Suraj
Diware, Girish Diware, and Swapnil Diware witnessed the
applicant and other co-accused at the spot and they fled
away from the spot of the incident. The allegations
against the applicant are that he was member of
“unlawful assembly” and in pursuance of common object
of the said assembly, they eliminated the deceased and,
therefore, role of the applicant is immaterial. Thus, as far
as merits of the matter is concerned, involvement of the
applicant reveals and, therefore, the application deserves
to be rejected.

¶50

11.Earlier, bail application of the applicant
bearing Criminal Application BA No.683/2022 was
rejected by this court on merits. Thereafter, the applicant

¶51

.....7/-

¶52

449 ba682.25

¶53

¶54

approached the Sessions Court. Again, he filed bail
application bearing Criminal Application BA No.782/2023
which was also rejected by this court, however liberty was
granted to the applicant to move a fresh application
before the trial court if no charge is framed or no
substantial progress is made in next one year. The said
order was passed on 24.1.2024. The applicant has also
approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex
Court has also dismissed the special leave petition and
also requested learned Judge of the Trial Court to take up
the case as expeditiously as possible.

¶55

12.The Roznama on record shows that since
9.11.2023 various applications are filed including
applications for grant of bail and for discharge. On some
of occasions, the accused persons remained absent who
are released on bail, and, therefore, the charge could not
be framed. The Roznama further shows that adjournment
applications are also filed by the accused persons for

¶56

.....8/-

¶57

449 ba682.25

¶58

¶59

hearing on discharge applications.

¶60

13.Thus, it is relevant to note that it is not because

¶61

that the accused persons are not produced and charge is
not framed, but on various occasions, though the accused
persons were produced, the accused on bail were absent
and, therefore, the charge could not be framed.

¶62

Insofar as right of the accused of speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is concerned, which is a fundamental right. It is also true that Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. At the same time, the observations recently made by the Hon’ble Apex in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan supra, are relevant wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, “ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application

¶63

.....9/-

¶64

449 ba682.25

¶65

¶66

of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its
discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of
the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the
victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial
when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the
victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly
delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the
accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release
on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a
speedy trial has been infringed.”

¶67

In the light of the above observations, perusal of the Roznama reveals that the trial is delayed as various applications are filed by the accused persons including the discharge applications, on various occasions adjournments are sought, and on various occasions accused persons on bail were not present and, therefore, the charge could not be framed. Learned Judge of the trial court has also noted this fact and also noted that considering the accused is

¶68

.....10/-

¶69

449 ba682.25

¶70

¶71

behind the bars for more than three years, charge can be
framed expeditiously and the trial can be disposed of. The
directions can be given to learned Judge of the trial court
to dispose of the trial expeditiously by framing the charge.

¶72

In this view of the matter, the criminal application is rejected . Order accordingly.

¶73

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶74

!! BrWankhede !!

¶75

...../-

Suresh S/O Chindhuji Patrikar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Yavatmal (Rural), Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suresh S/O Chindhuji Patrikar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Yavatmal (Rural), Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin S/O Namdeo Gaikwad Vs Ashvini W/O Pravin Gaikwad

Swapnil S/O Sadashiv Chavan Vs Payal W/O. Swapnil Chavan

Zuber Afsar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr, Pso, Ps, Pachpaoli, Nagpur City

Prakash S/O Damodar Kathoke Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Beltarodi Police Station, Dist. Nagpur

Sunil S/O Gowardhandas Panjwani Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Gadchiroli, Dist. Gadchiroli

Ashish S/O Rajendrakumar Tiwari vs Neha W/O Ashish Tiwari