← Library
Bombay High CourtCRMAB/66/2025rejected

Gaurav Bidre v. State Of Goa Through Public Prosecutor And Other

2025-11-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat7 pages

umashirodkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO.66 OF 2025 GAURAV BIDRE ... APPLICANT

Versus

STATE OF GOA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND OTHER ... RESPONDENTS Mr. Sangram Desai and Mr. Rohan Desai, Advocates for the Applicant/Appellant.

Mr. Shailendra G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for Respondent nos.1 and 2.

Mr. L. Raghunandan, Advocate for the Respondent no.3 under Legal Aid Services.

CORAM:- SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.

DATED :- 7th November, 2025.

P.C.:

Vide Order dated 16.10.2025, this Court had passed an Order directing the trial Court to decide the application dated 28.04.2025 filed by the Applicant, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the Order dated 16.10.2025 and also to immediately chalk out a trial program with the assistance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, Investigating Officer and the

Defence Counsel keeping in view the observations made in the case of Bharat Vs State and another1 and the latest Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Mir Usman @Ara @ Mir Usman Ali2.

2. Today when the matter was called out, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant has informed this Court that the trial Court has not passed any order on his application dated 28.04.2025 and only a schedule of trial has been filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor before the trial Court. The Applicant has also placed on record the Roznama of the trial Court dated 3.11.2025.

3. I have gone through the Roznama of the trial court. The Roznama shows that the Public Prosecutor has filed a "Schedule of trial" (D/78). The Roznama also shows that the order passed by this Court dated 18.10.2025 has been received by the trial court. I, therefore, called upon the Learned Counsel for Applicant to place on record the copy of the schedule of 1 2024, SCC Online Bom. 3863 2 2025 SCC Online SC 2066

trial.

4. After having gone through the copy of Schedule of Trial, in my opinion, this was not what was the purport of the Order dated 16.10.2025 passed by this Court. The whole idea of chalking out a trial program by the trial Court with the assistance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, Investigating Officer and the defence Counsel was to have an estimation of the number of material witnesses which would be required to be examined by the Learned Public Prosecutor and to filter the examination of unnecessary examination of witnesses which would protract the trial.

5. The directions which were issued by this Court were to chalk out a trial program with the assistance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, Investigating Officer and the Defence Counsel keeping in view the Orders passed by this Court after taking into consideration the ruling of the Apex Court, however, it appears that the requisite exercise of chalking out a trial program has not been done in its true letter and spirit and

what has been filed and that too only by the Public Prosecutor for the State, is the list of witnesses which is called as schedule of trial.

6. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Mir Usman @Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (supra), this aspect should be looked into by the trial Judge himself and the trial Judge should ask the Public Prosecutor why he wants to examine a particular witness.

7. The Relevant paragraphs of the Judgment of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Mir Usman @Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (supra) is reproduced herein below: "7. We fail to understand why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 30 witnesses in a trial for the offence of rape. What is the idea in multiplying the witnesses on one particular issue or the other.

8. We are conscious of the fact that it is the Public Prosecutor who could be said to be in-charge of the criminal trial, but at the same time, if the Court finds that

unnecessary examination of the witnesses is protracting the trial, then definitely it is a matter of concern. This aspect should be looked into by the Trial Judge himself. The Trial Judge should ask the Public Prosecutor why he wants to examine a particular witness.

10. Over a period of time, this Court in many of its Judgments and orders has said that it is the quality of the evidence that is important and not the quantity.

If examination of unnecessary witnesses is delaying the trial, it would serve no good purpose."

8. In the case of Bharat vs State and Another (supra), - in Para 34 it is observed that "In this view of the matter, it would be not out of place to observe that such a procedure would be obviated, if, as far as possible in all criminal cases, the Public Prosecutors, with the aid of the defence counsel and under supervision of the concerned Magistrate/Sessions Court, file a Trial Program specifying the list of witnesses to be examined by the Prosecution and the specific documents to be produced/proved by each of the witnesses, before trial commences and before charge is framed. Following such a

procedure would also enable the Public Prosecutor to confirm whether all evidence sought to be relied upon in the Charge sheet is actually available. The Public Prosecutor may also confirm the availability of important witnesses before the case goes to trial, in the event of the Charge being framed"

9. In the present case, the schedule of trial which is filed is nothing but a reiteration of list of witnesses. The list of witnesses was always available before the trial court and therefore there was no reason to file it again. What was expected and required to be filed was a proper "trial program" for instance, the trial program should have indicated the number of material/relevant witnesses which the prosecutor would be examining after identifying the same from the chargesheet, the approximate dates on which the these witnesses would be examined, the time period which would be required for examining cited witnesses, specific documents which will be produced/proved by each of the witnesses and the duration for conclusion of the trial etc. Such an exercise that too with the assistance of the Learned Public Prosecutor,

Investigating Officer and the Defence Counsel would constitute a proper trial program. The instances cited above are only indicative and the trial Court, in addition to the above, will be at liberty to prepare a robust trial program in order to ensure speedy trial, keeping in mind the rulings of the Apex Court and this Court.

10. The trial Court is, therefore expected to follow the Order of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its true letter and spirit and chalk out a trial program in real sense with the assistance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, Investigating Officer and the Defence Counsel. This is only possible if there is a joint discussion about the trial program. Such an exercise at the inception by the trial court will avert procrastination of trial and will be in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. Stand over to 13.11.2025.

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.