Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1231 Bom
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2023
1 23wp16.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 16/2023
Rajendra alias Bandu S/o. Akaramji
Ramekar, age 63 yrs., Occ. Retired.
R/o. Jawahar Nagar, near Rekha Colony,
Amravati.
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station Dattapur,
Tq. Dhamangaon (Railway),
Dist. Amravati.
2. Santosh S/o. Ramdas Palaskar,
Age adult, Occ. Not known,
R/o. Plot No.1, Swavalambi Nagar,
Amravati,
3. Arvind S/o. Sukdeorao Dandge,
Age Adult, Occ. Not Known,
R/o. Old Bypass Road, Yashoda
Nagar No.1, Amravati.
(Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are deleted
as per Court's order dated 06.02.2023.)
RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. M. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES JJ.
DATE : 06.02.2023
2 23wp16.23.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.)
The learned counsel appearing for petitioner seeks to
delete the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Considering the limited prayer,
leave is granted as prayed for.
2. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of both counsel.
4. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 1 in Regular
Criminal Case No. 108/2013 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Dhamangaon (Railway), Amravati. The petitioner is seeking
limited relief to direct the Trial Court to decide case expeditiously as the
same is pending for nearby 10 years.
5. Considering the nature of relief claim, we have called report
of the Presiding Officer as well as copy of entire Roznama. Though
charge-sheet has been filed in the year 2013, till the year 2019, the trial
remained pending for various applications filed by petitioner.
Thereafter, co-accused (No.3) has applied for discharge which was
rejected. It reveals that during the period of last near about six months
other co-accused did not remain present which caused the Magistrate to
keep the matter pending for no reason. Particularly, accused No. 2 did
not appear in the Court, therefore non-bailable warrant and notice to
the surety were issued, but still they are awaited.
3 23wp16.23.odt
6. By and large, for the period for more than last six months, the
matter is stalled due to absence of accused No. 2. Since the case is ten
years old, naturally the petitioner has right to seek a speedy trial.
7. In the above circumstances, the learned Magistrate is
directed to secure presence of co-accused by all possible modes available
under the law. If either of the accused including petitioner remains non-
cooperative, the Magistrate may in his discretion take appropriate steps
to secure their presence. If the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that
either of the accused is untraceable despite exhausting all available
modes then he may separate the trial regarding other accused. The
petition is disposed of accordingly with further direction to expedite the
trial.
8. Inform the concerned Magistrate accordingly.
(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARAT GOHANE BHARAT Date:
GOHANE 2023.02.07 12:48:41 +0530
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!