Bombay High Court
PRAVIN VILAS YAMGARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that no direction for expeditious disposal could be issued and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Pravin Vilas Yamgar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Sessions Judge to dispose of his criminal case within three months, alleging fear of bodily harm from the accused. The petitioner claimed that despite being under armed police protection, the lengthy trial posed a risk. The charge‑sheet listed 71 witnesses, of which only six had been examined. The Court observed that given the large number of pending witnesses, there was no justification to order an expedited disposal within the petitioner’s stipulated period. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The petition was therefore dismissed without any direction for speedy trial.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ under Article 226 can be issued directing a Sessions Court to dispose of a criminal trial within a specific short time frame.
Subjects
- Article 226
- expeditious trial
- criminal procedure
- witness examination
- protective custody
Judgment
12-WP-737-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 737 OF 2026
Pravin Vilas Yamgar ] Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and another ] Respondents
.....
Mr. Sandeep Koregave, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, A.P.P, for Respondents – State.
.....
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, &
Digitally
signed by
SHAILAJA
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
HALKUDE Date:
2026.09.29
DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER 2026
10:59:24
+0530
P. C. :
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the learned Sessions
Judge to dispose of the Sessions Case expeditiously and in a time-
bound manner, preferably within a period of three months.
2. The ground urged by the Petitioner for seeking expeditious
disposal of the Sessions Case is that he apprehends that he would be
bodily harmed by the accused. It is, however, an admitted position
that the Petitioner has been provided protection by one armed
1/2
Shailaja
12-WP-737-2026.doc
Police Officer, along with two other Police personnel, who are
guarding him round the clock.
3. As per the charge-sheet, a list of seventy-one witnesses has
been furnished. Out of the said seventy-one witnesses, six witnesses
have already been examined and the remaining witnesses are yet to
be examined.
4. Considering the number of witnesses cited in the charge-sheet
and the fact that only six witnesses have been examined so far, in
our view, no case is made out for issuing a direction to the learned
Sessions Court to dispose of the Sessions Case expeditiously and
within the time stipulated by the Petitioner. We are also of the view
that there is no sufficient reason to grant the relief sought in the
present Petition.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in
the present Petition.
6. The Petition stands dismissed.
[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] [RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ]
2/2
Shailaja
Checking your session…