Bombay High Court
PRADEEP RAGHUNATH CHAVANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, and no bail was granted.
Summary
Pradeep Raghunath Chavan applied for bail before the Bombay High Court. The applicant's counsel argued that the court should not pass any order on the merits of the bail application so as not to affect the pending trial, and requested that the trial be expedited due to the applicant's long incarceration. The court, noting the applicant's prolonged detention, directed the trial court to conduct the trial expeditiously. It also recognized the assistance of a legal‑aid appointed advocate for the second respondent and ordered payment of her fees under the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules. The bail application was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn, meaning no bail was granted.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the applicant pending trial
- Whether the court should pass an order on the merits of the bail application at this stage
- Whether the trial should be expedited due to the applicant's long incarceration
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998 — s. Regulation 18(1)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- legal aid
- trial expeditious
- withdrawn application
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH 36-ba-1380-26.doc
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.09.22
11:30:26
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1380 OF 2026
Pradeep Raghunath Chavan .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondent
....................
Ms Shubhangi Parulekar a/w Mr. Sudarshan Dongre Advocates for
Applicant.
Ms Shilpa Talhar APP for State.
Ms Shuba Shirsat appointed Advocate (appointed) for Respondent
No.2.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms Parulekar, learned Advocate for Applicant, Ms
Talhar learned APP for Respondent and Ms Shirsat, learned appointed
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. Pursuant to the previous order and the reports having been
submitted before the Court and after expressing my disinclination to
grant the present application for bail, Ms Parulekar, persuades the
Court not to pass any order on merits lest it would affect the trial
which is yet to be commence. She would submit that in view of the
long incarceration undergone by the Applicant this Court be pleased to
expedite the trial. That request made by Ms Parulekar can undoubtedly
be granted considering the long incarceration of the Applicant. The
Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it as
Meera Jadhav 1 of 2
36-ba-1380-26.doc
expeditiously as possible.
3. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Shirsat,
learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the
cause of Respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix). Her fees be paid by the High
Court Legal Aid Services Authority as per rules on production of a
server copy of this order and other compliances in accordance with the
decision of this Court in the case of Sanjyot Nitin Telharkar v. The
State of Maharashtra & Anr1 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1)
of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998.
4. Bail Application is dismissed as withdrawn.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
1 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.134 of 2024.
Meera Jadhav 2 of 2
Checking your session…