Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA KANDASWAMI VANIYARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is dismissed because the trial is underway and the appellant’s prolonged detention does not, by itself, warrant bail at this stage.
Summary
The appellant, Rajendra Kandaswami Vaniyar, appealed under Section 14‑A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Additional Sessions Judge’s order rejecting his bail application in a case involving IPC offences of murder, assault and intimidation, as well as an offence under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC & ST Act. He argued that he had been in custody for over four years as an under‑trial prisoner and therefore deserved bail. The State contended that the trial was already underway, a witness had been examined, and cited a recent decision of this Court (Bail Application No. 638 of 2026) where the bail application was withdrawn when relief was not granted. The Court, after considering the overall facts, declined to entertain the appeal at this stage, dismissing it, but allowed the appellant to file a fresh appeal if the trial is not concluded within three months. The decision underscores the Court’s discretion to defer bail considerations when the trial is progressing and the appellant has already served a substantial period of incarceration.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14‑A of the SC & ST Act despite a prolonged period of pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the commencement of trial and examination of a witness justify the rejection of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 323, 324, 34, 504, 506(2)
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A, 3(2)(5)
Subjects
- bail
- under‑trial detention
- SC & ST Act
- appeal
- pre‑trial custody
- criminal procedure
Judgment
1 23-APEAL 795-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.795 OF 2026
Rajendra Kandaswami Vaniyar … Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
-----
Mr. Vinod Kashid for the Appellant.
Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Kishor Walanju, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
PSI Sunil Khaire, Bangar Nagar Police Station is present.
-----
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 22.09.2026
P.C. :
1. This Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “SC
& ST Act”) takes exception to the order dated 24.07.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali
Division, Dinodoshi, Mumbai below Exhibit-4 (Bail Application) in
Special Case No. 366 of 2022.
2. By the order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has rejected the application for bail filed by the appellant,
who is in custody in C.R. No.445 of 2022 registered at Bangur
Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC & ST Act.
Dinesh 1 of 2
2 23-APEAL 795-26.doc
3. The bail is sought inter alia on the ground of long
incarceration as an undertrial prisoner. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant is in jail for a period of four
years and three months.
4. Learned APP for the respondent/State has drawn my
attention to the order passed by this Court dated 17.2.2026 in
Bail Application No. 638 of 2026. It is submitted that the said
order shows that when this Court was not inclined to grant any
relief, the said bail application was withdrawn. Learned APP
further submits that the trial has commenced and prosecution
has already examined one witness.
5. Considering overall facts and circumstances, at this stage,
I am not inclined to entertain the present appeal. Hence, the
Appeal is dismissed.
6. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to file a fresh
appeal before this Court if the trial is not concluded within a
period of three months from today.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
Dinesh 2 of 2
Checking your session…