Bombay High Court

LAKHAN KAMLESH PARDESHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Withdrawn

Holding

A successive bail application filed within four months of withdrawal is not permissible; the applicant may file a fresh application after 10‑02‑2027 if the trial shows insufficient progress.

Summary

The applicant, Lakhan Kamlesh Pardeshi, sought bail on the ground of long incarceration, filing a successive bail application within four months of withdrawing an earlier application that the court had not inclined to grant on merit. The State argued that the applicant could not rely on the long incarceration ground so soon after the withdrawal and that a minimum one‑year interval was required. The court accepted that filing a successive application within four months was impermissible, but allowed the applicant to file a fresh bail application after 10 February 2027 if the trial showed insufficient progress. The court also directed the Sessions Court to consider the trial in its schedule, though it did not order an expedited trial due to workload. Consequently, the present bail application was disposed of as withdrawn.

Issues considered

Whether a successive bail application can be filed within four months of withdrawal on the ground of long incarceration without trial.
Whether the applicant is entitled to file a fresh bail application after a specified period if the trial does not progress.
Whether the trial can be expedited at the request of the applicant.

Subjects

bail
successive bail application
long incarceration
trial delay
procedural time limit
withdrawal of application
fresh bail application

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40465
                                                                         969na1482-26

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             969 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1482 OF 2026

                                    Lakhan Kamlesh Pardeshi
                                            VERSUS
                                    The State Of Maharashtra
                                                ...
            Mr. Patil Vijay Bhalerao, Advocate for the Applicant
            Mr. S. V. Hange, APP for the Respondent-State


                                    CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                      Dated : 2nd September, 2026
            PER COURT :-

            1.       Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for

            the State.


            2.       This Court, on 10.082026, had directed the learned Advocate

            to place on record      the status of the trial. The learned Advocate

            informs that till date, the charges have not been framed. The learned

            APP submits that there are approximately 37 witnesses which are

            required to be examined. He further submits that the earlier order

            permitting withdrawal of the bail application of the present application

            as the court was not inclined to grant it on       merit was passed on

            10.02.2026 and the present application which is successive application

            has been filed within for months from the said date. The successive

            application does not have any change of circumstance, at least on

            merits. However, the pleadings indicate that it is on the ground of long

            incarceration.    According to the learned APP, filing of the application

                                                                                1 of 3
                                                             969na1482-26

within a period of four months after the earlier bail application was

withdrawn as the court was not inclined to allow it on merit does not

permit the applicant to file the successive application on the ground

that the applicant is suffering long incarceration without trial. The

learned Advocate for the applicant, however, submits that taking into

consideration that the charges have not been framed, the application

be considered.


3.           Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by both

sides, the contention of the learned APP, at least to some extent, can be

accepted that the applicant cannot approach this Court within a period

of four months on the ground of long incarceration. The applicant

should have waited at least for one year from the date of filing of the

application. However, the learned Advocate for the applicant submits

that he may be permitted to file fresh application after a period of six

months in case there is no sufficient progress in the trial. The learned

Advocate seeks to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh

application after a period of six months from today and also to expedite

the trial.


4.           Taking into consideration   the entire submissions that has

been canvassed, it will be appropriate if the applicant is granted liberty

to file fresh application after 10.02.2027, in case there is no sufficient

progress in the conduct of the trial. The expedition of the trial will not


                                                                     2 of 3
                                                                          969na1482-26

           be appropriate for the reason that it is a matter of record that the trial

           courts are over burdened with work and there are other matters which

           are already lined up. However, the request is made to the learned

           Sessions Court that if at all its schedule permits, the present trial can be

           taken up and it may be proceeded in accordance with law.


           5.       With the above observations, the application stands disposed

           of as withdrawn.




                                                        (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                                 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…