Krishna Manohar Joshi v. The State Of Maharashtra
925 BA NO. 1480 OF 2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 925 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1480 OF 2020 SADASAHIV SAMBHAJI SHIKHARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Mr. Rathi Swapnil S., Advocate for Applicant Mr. K.K.Naik,APP for Respondents/State Mr. M. G. Kedar h/for Adv. G. K Naik Thigle, Advocate for informant WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3261 OF 2022 IN BA/632/2021 ....
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 16.09.2025 PER COURT :- 1.
By letter dated 29.08.2025, the learned Trial Court has sought a further two years extension of time to dispose of Regular Criminal Case No.24 of 2019. This Court had earlier directed, by order dated 05.03.2021, that the trial be concluded by the end of that year i.e., December, 2021. Subsequently, by order dated 01.02.2022, this court granted a further extension of four months. Another extension of four months was granted by order dated 09.01.2024. However, the trial has not yet been concluded and this is the fourth request for extension. This indicates that despite directions issued as far back as in 2021, the Trial Court has failed to conclude the trial. It appears that the concerned Judicial Officer i.e., JMFC, Basmatnagar, district Hingoli may have
(( 2 )) 925 BA NO. 1480 OF 2020 been transferred. As a result, no one is being held accountable for the failure to dispose of the said trial within time frame as directed by this Court.
2.
On earlier three occasions, the time for disposal of the case was extended by this Court. If further extension of two years time is now granted, it is certain that the Judicial Officer currently handling the case will be transferred and the newly assigned officer will again submit that he has just taken charge of the matter. Such excuses are not justifiable, especially when clear directions were already given by this Court. This shows that the Trial Court, which is seized of the matter, is not genuinely interested in disposing of the case. On the contrary, now a prayer has been made seeking a further extension of two years time, which is wholly unacceptable. Surprisingly, there is also a request to relax the direction to take up the matter at least twice a week.
If the witnesses are not responding, or the defence counsel or the Assistant Public Prosecutor is not cooperating, the Trial Court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, by imposing costs or taking other appropriate steps. However, in any case, the trial shall be concluded within four months from today, as a last chance. The Trial Court shall take note that if the trial is not concluded within four months from today, the Principal District Judge shall be expected to take appropriate cognizance of the delay.
(( 3 )) 925 BA NO. 1480 OF 2020 3.
The learned Principal District Judge, Hingoli is also directed to guide the Trial Court, ensure that the matter is decided as expeditiously as possible and submit monthly progress reports to this Court. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav