Bombay High Court
RAMCHANDRA ALIAS RAMANNA SHIVSHANKAR KEDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- Dismissed as Withdrawn
Holding
The bail application was disposed of as withdrawn, with directions for expeditious trial.
Summary
The applicant, Ramchandra Shivshankar Kedar, filed a criminal bail application while already in custody since September 2019. The trial court had already dismissed an earlier bail application as withdrawn and the trial was underway with four prosecution witnesses examined. The applicant's counsel sought to withdraw the present application, citing no merit for relief, and requested directions for an expedited trial. The High Court, after reviewing a report from the Additional Sessions Judge, directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, with cooperation from the prosecution, and allowed the applicant to approach the court again after that period if delays persisted. Consequently, the bail application was disposed of as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail application should be entertained given the prior dismissal and commencement of trial.
- Whether the court may direct the trial court to expedite the trial within a specified timeframe.
- Whether the applicant may approach the court again after six months if the trial is not concluded.
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- trial delay
- expeditious trial
- withdrawal of application
Judgment
1
22-BA-338-2026(CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.338 OF 2026
Ramchandra @ Ramanna Shivshankar Kedar ….Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra and Ors.
....Respondents
-----
Mr. Gaurav Kalekar (Through VC) a/w Mr. Rutik A. Kashid, for
Applicant.
Ms. Madhavi H. Mhatre, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Digitally signed
by SHANTANU
SHANTANU
SHANKARSA
DHUDUM
SHANKARSA
DHUDUM
Date:
2026.07.08
-----
14:55:54 +0530
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 7th JULY, 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for
the Respondent-State.
2. Perused the report dated 16/06/2026 submitted by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, District: Solapur, in
pursuance to the order dated 07/05/2026 passed by this Court.
3. The report shows that the prosecution has examined four
witnesses before the learned trial Court. Learned APP Mr. Anand S.
Shalgaonkar, on instructions of APP Ms. Madhavi H. Mhatre appearing
before the trial Court submits that the prosecution proposes to examine
six more witnesses, where after the prosecution evidence is likely to be
concluded.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
22-BA-338-2026(CR).DOC
4. After hearing for sometime, the learned counsel Mr. Gaurav
Kalekar for the Applicant also on merits, as this Court was not inclined
to grant any relief to the Applicant, particularly in view of the fact that
the earlier bail application was already dismissed as withdrawn and the
trial has already commenced, learned counsel for the Applicant seeks
permission to withdraw the present application. He, however, prays that
appropriate directions be issued to the learned trial Court for
expeditious disposal of the trial. Permission is granted.
5. Having regard to the report dated 16/06/2026 submitted by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, it appears that the
trial has progressed to some extent and four prosecution witnesses have
already been examined. Since, the Applicant has remained in custody
since 21st September, 2019. it would be appropriate to direct the learned
trial Court to expedite the trial.
6. Accordingly, the learned trial Court is directed to make every
endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of
the order. The prosecution shall co-operate and assist to the trial Court
for completing the trial within a period of six months.
7. Liberty is granted to the Applicant to again approach this
Court afresh after a period of six months, if the trial is not concluded
within aforesaid period and if the Applicant is not responsible for the
delay in trial.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
22-BA-338-2026(CR).DOC
8. In view of the aforesaid directions, the application stands
disposed of as withdrawn.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…