Allowed¶22

The State of Maharashtra v. Sachin Vishwanath Bhosale and Another

Bombay HC17 Dec 2025WP/815/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: criminal writ petition; State of Maharashtra versus Sachin Vishwanath Bhosale and Another; Sessions Court Osmanabad; application below Exhibit 88; application below Exhibit 90; Dr. Balaji Babarao Guddhe; Medical Officer; medical certificate; closure of prosecution evidence; permission to examine witness; Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; quashed and set aside; summon witness within four weeks; complete trial within six months; Sushil M. Ghodeswar J.; Aurangabad Bench; 2025:BHC-AUG:36024; 17th December 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed and disposed of: orders dated 11/03/2019 and 18/03/2019 quashed and set aside; prosecution to summon and examine the Medical Officer within four weeks; Sessions Court to complete the trial within six months thereafter. ¶22

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sachin Vishwanath Bhosale and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the State should be permitted to examine the Medical Officer, Dr. Balaji Babarao Guddhe, so that the medical certificate issued by him can be proved, notwithstanding that prosecution evidence had been closed — i.e., whether the impugned orders refusing such permission should be quashed.

¶19

Court's answer

In the Court's view, the State could have been granted the opportunity to examine the Medical Officer in order to prove its case; hence the petition is allowed and both impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Medical Officer/witness is to be summoned by the prosecution and examined within a period of four weeks.

¶22

Key takeaways

After examining the said witness, the learned Sessions Court is to complete the trial within a period of six months.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition No. 815 of 2019 (neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:36024), decided on 17th December 2025 by Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J., High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench: Allowed the State of Maharashtra's petition challenging the Sessions Court, Osmanabad orders dated 11/03/2019 (application below Exhibit 88) and 18/03/2019 (application below Exhibit 90) rejecting its applications for permission to examine Dr. Balaji Babarao Guddhe, Medical Officer, after prosecution evidence was closed on 11/03/2019. Held that the State ought to have been given the opportunity to examine the material witness so that the medical certificate issued by him could be proved; quashed and set aside both orders; directed the prosecution to summon the witness within four weeks and the Sessions Court to complete the trial within six months thereafter. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (including Sachin Vishwanath Bhosale) were served but did not appear; a stay granted on 07/05/2019 had kept the trial pending.

¶1

815.19crwp

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:36024

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

914 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 815 OF 2019

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS

¶7

SACHIN VISHWANATH BHOSALE AND ANOTHER

¶8

Mr V. M. Lomte, APP for petitioner/State

¶9

CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 17th DECEMBER 2025

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

Heard Mr Lomte, learned APP for the petitioner/State.

¶13

Mr Lomte submits that the State has filed this petition

¶14

challenging the order dated 11/03/2019 passed on application below Exhibit 88 and the order dated 18/03/2019 passed on application below

¶15

Exhibit 90. Vide the said orders, the learned Sessions Court, Osmanabad rejected the aforesaid applications preferred by the State for permission to examination of witness, namely, Dr. Balaji Babarao Guddhe, Medical Officer. Learned Sessions Court observed that sufficient time was granted to the prosecution, however, the prosecution has failed to keep witness present and therefore, evidence of prosecution side was closed. Learned Sessions Court also observed

¶16

815.19crwp

¶17

(2)

¶18

that evidence of prosecution was closed on 11/03/2019 and when the matter was kept for recording of statement of accused as contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, State has moved application for permission to examine the said witness/Medical Officer.

¶19

Today, learned APP Mr Lomte submits that the prosecution ought to have given permission to examine the said material witness as the evidence of said witness is important. The said Medical Officer had issued medical certificate. He further submits that if the said witness is not examined, the said certificate can not be proved and therefore, examination of said witness is important. He therefore, prays for quashing both the impugned orders and seeking permission to examine the said witness.

¶20

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been served, but are not present and nobody appearing on their behalf. This Court had granted stay vide the order dated 07/05/2019. Since then, the trial is pending. Since the submission is made on behalf of the petitioner/State for examining the witness/Medical Officer, in my view, the State could have been granted opportunity to examine the Medical Officer in order to prove its case. Hence this petition is allowed. The orders dated

¶21

815.19crwp (3)

¶22

11/03/2019 and 18/03/2019 are quashed and set aside. The said Medical Officer/witness be summoned by the prosecution for examining him within a period of four weeks from today. After examining of said witness, the learned Sessions Court to complete the trial within a period of six months .

¶23

The present petition is disposed of.

¶24

[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

¶25

sjk

The State of Maharashtra v. Sachin Vishwanath Bhosale and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sachin Vishwanath Bhosale and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjitsing Bhagatsing Patil and Anr. Vs State of Mah

Sunil Prabhakar Shimpi Vs Bhimsing Dhansing Patil and Others

Satyasheel Avinash Akole Vs Sanjay Madhukar Koranne and Anr.

Shamkant Vasudeo Kulkarni Vs State of Mah

Sainakshatra Production Prop-Ajitkumar Laxman Dhule, Vs Om Chemicals Prop-Shriniwas Laxminarayan Bihani

Shrirang Madhavrao Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra