Vijay Digambhar Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:21808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 52 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 662 OF 2025 VIJAY DIGAMBHAR PAWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

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

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 11.08.2025 P.C. :

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

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.

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and, consequently, the applicant withdrew the bail application, on 11.08.2023 i.e. the application was dismissed as withdrawn.

Thereafter, in another subsequent Bail

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trial, as the submission was made in terms of the applicant's health condition and the application was dismissed as withdrawn.

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.

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. 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.

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.

6] The Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe