CHANDRAKANT BHAGWAT GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:39623
                                                1                        54BA764.2026.odt

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               54 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 764 OF 2026

                                        Chandrakant Bhagwat Gore
                                                  VERSUS
                                         The State Of Maharashtra
                                                    ...
               Mr. Rahul P. Mote - Advocate for Applicant
               Mr. D. J. Patil - APP for the State
                                                    ...

                                         CORAM :     HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.

                                         DATED :     31ST AUGUST, 2026


               PER COURT :


               1.           Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the

               learned APP for the State.


               2.           By the last order, this Court had directed the learned Trial

               Court to submit a report regarding the progress of the trial. The report

               has been received on 17.06.2026, categorically stating that effective

               steps are being taken to proceed with the trial. However, on some dates,

               the learned Advocate for the Applicant himself was not present, while on

               some dates, the Investigating Officer had not produced the accused

               before the Trial Court.


               3.           The learned APP has invited my attention to the order

               dated 13.02.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 2253 of 2025. He

               submits that, while disposing of the said application as withdrawn, this
                                  2                          54BA764.2026.odt

Court had categorically granted liberty to the Applicant to file a fresh

application after one year, in case the trial did not progress.


4.             The learned APP submits that the present Applicant has

approached this Court within two months of the said order and,

therefore, the present application is not maintainable, particularly when,

on merits, this Court was not inclined to entertain the earlier Bail

Application.


5.             I have perused the order dated 13.02.2026 as well as the

report submitted by the learned Trial Court. Taking into consideration

the liberty granted while permitting withdrawal of Bail Application No.

2253 of 2025, the period of one year is yet to expire. The present

application is, therefore, not maintainable, particularly when, on merits,

this Court was not inclined to entertain the Bail Application and the

learned Advocate for the Applicant, upon instructions from the

Applicant, had chosen to withdraw the same. The present application,

therefore, could not have been filed within a period of two months,

once again reiterating that the trial was not progressing. Secondly, the

report indicates that certain stages of the trial have already been

completed and that the trial is likely to proceed expeditiously and

conclude.


6.             One aspect which also needs to be taken into consideration

is the fact that, during the trial, the accused are not being produced
                                                               3                         54BA764.2026.odt

                             from the jail before the Trial Court and the Advocates representing the

                             accused are also not remaining present. One year period that has been

                             granted for submitting application excludes the default on the part of

                             the accused. However, that does not mean that the accused should be

                             produced before the Trial Court. It is the duty of the Jail authorities to

                             produce the accused persons before the trial court on the date of trial

                             failing which there is clear contravention of Section 346 of the BNS for

                             which Jail authorities should be taken to task by the Trial Court.


                             7.           With   these   observations,   the   present   application   is

                             dismissed.


                             8.           Liberty is granted to the Applicant to file a fresh application

                             upon expiry of one year from the date of withdrawal of the earlier

                             application i.e. 13.02.2026, after excluding the period during which the

                             trial is adjourned on account of failure on the part of the Applicant or

                             his Advocate.


                                                                     [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]
                                                                              JUDGE

                             SG Punde




Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/09/2026 15:23:07