Walmik Baburao Karad vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Walmik Baburao Karad vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Withdrawal of the appeal and the amendment application; both stand disposed of with liberty to pursue any appropriate remedy as permissible in law, and all pending applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant/appellant should be permitted, by amendment of his appeal, to incorporate a challenge to the order dated 23/03/2025 of the learned Special Judge, Beed whereby charge was framed against him, given that charge has already been framed. +2 more

Court's answer

The Court expressed its disinclination to grant relief in favour of the applicant/appellant in the amendment application, placing reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora (paragraph 154) and Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra (paragraph 28) that once charges are framed the accused cannot thereafter be discharged.

Ratio / Principle

In view of learned counsel seeking withdrawal, the appeal as well as the application for amendment stand disposed of, with liberty to pursue any appropriate remedy as permissible in law.

Key takeaways

In view of the disposal of the main appeal, all pending applications also stand disposed of.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2025 (with Criminal Applications Nos. 358 of 2026 and 4863 of 2025), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, JJ.), decided 28/01/2026 - Walmik Baburao Karad v. State of Maharashtra. The applicant/appellant sought amendment of his appeal to incorporate a challenge to the order dated 23/03/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Beed, whereby charge was framed against him. The learned GP, by affidavit in reply, contended that once charge has been framed the appeal against rejection of the discharge application has become infructuous, relying on Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 819 (paragraph 154) and Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 179 (paragraph 28). Placing reliance on these observations, the Court expressed its disinclination to grant relief in the amendment application. Learned counsel for the appellant thereupon sought withdrawal of the appeal and the amendment application with liberty to pursue any appropriate remedy as permissible in law; the appeal and the amendment application stand disposed of with such liberty, and all pending applications also stand disposed of.

1 1023 appeal 635-25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

1023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2025 WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2026 IN APEAL/635/2025

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4863 OF 2025 IN APEAL/635/2025

WALMIK BABURAO KARAD VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Mr. Nilesh Ghanekar h/f Mr. Kulkarni Sanket S., a/w Ashish R. Kachole, Advocate for Appellant

Mr. A. B. Girase, GP, Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya,APP & Mr. Sachin Salgare, for Respondent-State

Mr. Z. H. Farooqui h/f Mr. N. V. Gaware, Advocate for intervenor

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : 28/01/2026

P. C. :

Though the applicant has filed this application seeking amendment of his appeal to incorporate a challenge to the order dated 23/03/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Beed, whereby a charge is framed against the appellant, but the learned GP, by filing an affidavit in reply, contends that once the charge has been framed against the applicant/appellant, his appeal against the rejection of his discharge application has become infructuous. For this purpose, the learned GP has relied upon the judgment in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora and

2 1023 appeal 635-25

Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 819, wherein it is observed in paragraph 154 as follows:

“We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the trial court in exercise of the powers under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., the accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers under Section 227 or 216 Cr.P.C. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 Cr.P.C. provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the accused must necesarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed.”

Similar observations are made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1979) 2 SCC 179, in paragraph 28. Placing reliance on these observations, we express our disinclination to grant relief in favour of the applicant/appellant in the amendment application.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant seeks withdrawal of the appeal as well as the amendment application, with liberty to pursue any appropriate remedy as permissible in law under the circumstances. In view of the same, the appeal as well as the

3 1023 appeal 635-25

application for amendment stand disposed of, with liberty as aforesaid.

In view of the disposal of the main appeal, all pending applications also stand disposed of.

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )

VS Maind/-