Bombay High Court

SANDEEP BALASO JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The revision application is rejected as it lacks merit.

Summary

The petitioners, original accused No.3, filed a criminal revision challenging the trial court's rejection of their discharge application in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the hearing on 21 August 2026, the petitioner's advocate, Mr. Vinayak Patil, was absent due to a surgery, and the petitioners sought an adjournment. The court noted the lack of precise information about the advocate's surgery date and, after reviewing the impugned judgment, found no merit in the revision. Consequently, the revision application was rejected. As a result, the related criminal application (No. 444 of 2018) was also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal revision application challenging the rejection of a discharge application should be entertained despite the advocate's illness and request for adjournment.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302

Subjects

revision
criminal procedure
discharge application
Section 302 IPC
adjournment
part-heard

Judgment

27-REVN-354-2018 (CR).docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 354 OF 2018
Suman Anandrao Jadhav ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
CR. APPLICATION NO. 444 OF 2018
IN
CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 354 OF 2018
Sandeep Balaso Jadhav ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
___________
Mr. Balwant Salunkhe (Through VC) a/w. Mr. Omkar Koratkar i/b.
Mr. Vinayak Patil, Avvocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Samay Pawar (Through VC) a/w. Mr. Sairaj Suryawanshi,
Advocate for Intervenor.
Mr. Shrikant H. Yadav, APP for the State.
___________

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 28 AUGUST 2026
P. C. :

1. Mr. Salunkhe, today appears in the present proceedings on

behalf of the applicant. He submits that the matter be adjourned as

the advocate on record is unwell.

2. This is a part-heard matter and on 21 August, 2026, the

matter was argued on behalf of the applicant.

3. When a question was opposed to Mr. Salunkhe for what

reasons the advocate for applicant is not present today, he submits

that advocate for the applicant has undergone a surgery.

4. On a further query by this Court whether such a bypass

Rushi 1 of 2
27-REVN-354-2018 (CR).docx

surgery, undergone by the advocate for the applicant, was after 21st

August, 2026, Mr. Salunkhe submits that he does not have the exact

date. Advocate Salunkhe is not able to answer the query.

5. On 21 August, 2026, following order was passed in the

present proceedings:-

“1. The crime has been registered for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The present Revision Application is filed by original
accused No.3, challenging the order rejecting the discharge
application filed by the present applicant.

2. At the request of Mr. Patil holding for the learned
advocate on record for the applicant, stand over to
28 August 2026. The matter is to be treated as “part-
heard”.

6. Advocate Salunkhe is not able to make his submissions. I have

gone through the impugned judgment. I find no merit in this review.

Hence, Criminal Revision Application No. 354 of 2018 stands

rejected.

7. In view of rejection of Revision Application, Criminal

Application No. 444 of 2018 does not survive and same stands

disposed of.

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Rushi 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…