Rahul Vijay Koli v. Ajay Vinod Nannaware And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:28931 1 of 4 930-BA.1106.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 930 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1106 OF 2025 AJAY VINOD NANNAWARE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Mr. A. G. Mulange h/f. Mr. Jitendra Vijay Patil, Advocate for applicant. Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, APP for Respondent-State. ...

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2369 OF 2025 IN BA/1106/2025 RAHUL VIJAY KOLI

VERSUS

AJAY VINOD NANNAWARE AND ANOTHER ...

Ms. Khushi K. Varma, Advocate for Assist to P.P. Mr. A. G. Mulange h/f. Mr. Jitendra Vijay Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, APP for Respondent No.2-State. ...

CORAM :

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE :

9th OCTOBER, 2025 P.C.:- 1.

Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1-Assistant to PP and learned APP for the Respondent-State.

2.

This is an application for granting regular bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023). The applicant is arrested in Crime No.31 of 2022 dated 27th January 2022, registered with Dharangaon Police Station, Taluka Dharangaon District

2 of 4 930-BA.1106.2025 Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

Learned Advocate for the applicant and learned Advocate for Respondent APP for the Respondent-State pointed out the daily sheet, which indicates that the charge is framed and the list of documents for admission under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been forwarded.

4.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in custody since 28th January 2022. He was earlier released on bail; however, the same came to be cancelled by this Court considering the serious role of applicant in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the trial has now progressed, and hence, the applicant may be released on bail. It is lastly prayed that the present bail application be allowed.

5.

Learned APP for the Respondent-State strongly opposed the application and pointed out the earlier order passed by this Court, by which the previous application was withdrawn and the bail of the applicant was cancelled. Learned APP submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious offence and that the trial can be concluded within a six months. It is further submitted that, if he is released on bail, the applicant is likely to pressurise the prosecution witnesses.

3 of 4 930-BA.1106.2025 6.

Learned Advocate for Respondent-State relied upon the following order passed by the Trial Court showing that trial will take long time:- The earlier order passed by the learned District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, particularly the roznama dated 19th November 2025, shows that arguments on framing of charge were heard and charges have been framed. The roznama (daily sheet) dated 3rd October 2025 further shows that notice was issued for production of muddemal property, and the list of witnesses has also been submitted. The notice under Section 330 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) indicates that the notice under Section 394 for admission of documents has also been submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in that case.

7.

Considering all the aspects, particularly the serious nature of the offence, it would be appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six months from today. Having regard to the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down in the authorities relied upon by learned

4 of 4 930-BA.1106.2025 Advocate for the applicant, the same shall be ensured. However, at this stage, the applicant cannot be released on bail. Hence, the following order is passed:-

O R D E R

(i).

Application is rejected.

(ii). The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible within a six months. The learned Trial Court is directed to continue the said case, as it is a Sessions Case and needless to mention that a Sessions trial, once commenced, shall not be adjourned or interrupted except for valid and unavoidable reasons. For that the Trial Court shall also follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Pillai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2369 OF 2025:- 8.

This is an application for seeking permission to assist the A.P.P. during the course of hearing of Bail Application No.1106 of 2025. 9.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) Tauseef