Bombay High Court
Rama Alias Ramu Shivaji Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 18 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:25056
(1) crap530.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2025
Rama @ Ramu Shivaji Jadhav
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Mr. Avinash N. Barhate Patil, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. M.N. Ghanekar, APP for the respondent-State.
Ms.Tanishka P. Chavan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2025
Shoyab Shabbir Shaikh and Anr.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Mr.S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. M.N. Ghanekar, APP for the respondent-State.
Ms. Karishma Sanjay Sarin, Advocate for respondent No.2.
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2025
Yogesh @ Gotya Sarjerao Pardhe
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Mr. Avinash N. Barhate Patil, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. M.N. Ghanekar, APP for the respondent-State.
Ms. Karishma Sanjay Sarin, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 20.08.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 18.09.2025
(2) crap530.25
ORDER :
-
01. All these appeals are arising out of same trial and therefore
are taken together. The appellants are accused in Sessions Case No. 62
of 2015. They have approached this Court seeking bail on the ground of
delay in trial. Their earlier appeals are rejected by this Court. No
change in circumstances is pointed out except delay. The matters are,
therefore, being considered only on the ground of delay.
02. Facts in short giving rise to the prosecution are that an FIR
came to be lodged in Shirdi Police Station for the offence punishable
under sections 302, 201, 363, 364, 366, 143, 148, 149 of the Indian
Penal Code and under sections 3(1)(iii)(x) and 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Present
appellants are accused in the said crime. The FIR came to be lodged by
one Satish Gaikwad on 16.05.2015 with the Police Station. It is alleged
in the statement that on 16.05.2015, he had been to Shirdi for marriage
of sister of his friend. While going, he was called by one Sagar.
Thereafter, three of them went on motorcycle. First they went to one
Beer-bar. At around 1.30 a.m. they had a beer. At that time Vishal,
Rupesh, Somnath, Sunil and 2-3 unknown persons were also having
beer. At that time, mobile of Sagar rang in laud voice with a ringtone
(3) crap530.25
having lyrics of late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Vishal, therefore, asked
as to whose mobile is that. On that Sagar told his name. On that all
these persons assaulted Sagar with fist blows. Vishal took beer bottle
and banged it on the head of Sagar. The informant tried to pacify.
Tushar asked him his name. On telling his name, even the informant
was assaulted by the accused persons. They, thereafter, took the
informant on motorcycle. They also took Sagar with them on another
mother-cycle. Other vehicle went towards Savlivihir. Other accused left
the informant there itself. On this, the complaint was lodged.
03. Supplementary statements came to be recorded on
19.05.2015. It is stated in the supplementary statement that after
earlier incident the informant and his friend went in search of Sagar.
They were informed that Sagar was taken to one Rui Shivar. They went
to Rui Shivar and thereafter to Pimpalwadi Shivar. He was not found
even there. They, therefore, went further towards Puntamba road. They
found a mob near Rui to Shingve road. There they found Sagar in necked
condition, fallen on the ground. He was dead. It is thus alleged that
Sagar was murdered by the accused persons as mobile ringtone was in
the name of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. He also alleged offence under the
provisions of Atrocities Act.
(4) crap530.25
04. On the basis of this, crime came to be registered. Charge-
sheet came to be filed. Trial started. In the Trial Court, accused applied
for bail. Their applications for bail came to be rejected. Thereafter,
accused Kiran filed Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2024. Accused Rupesh
filed Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2024. Both the appeals came to be
allowed by this Court by order dated 25.09.2024 on certain conditions.
Other appeals came to be rejected/withdrawn.
05. The appellants have again approached this Court seeking bail
on the ground that still the Trial is not concluded.
06. Learned Advocate Mr. Chapalgaonkar for the appellants
vehemently argued that the appellant in Appeal No. 100 of 2025 came to
be arrested on 17.05.2015. Other accused came to be arrested on
23.05.2015. He submits that in the meantime, the accused has
approached this Court. Appellant No.2 in Appeal No. 100 of 2025 again
applied for bail. He also preferred appeal bearing No. 1056 of 2019
along with other co-accused. The appeals were, however, disposed off
directing the Sessions Court to dispose off the Trial within a period of six
months. Even, thereafter, the trial is not concluded. The appellants
(5) crap530.25
again preferred bail applications. By common order below below Exh.
451 and 459 in the Sessions Court, same were rejected. The appeals of
two accused, namely, Kiran and Rupesh are allowed by this Court and
they are released on bail. He submits that thus on the ground of parity
also present appellants deserve to be released on bail.
07. Learned APP submits that because of the proceedings in the
High Court, file was called in the High Court and for three years, the Trial
Could not show any progress as file was in the High Court. On merits it
is submitted that there is strong motive and there is also theory of last
seen together. On that count, the Trial Court and this Court rightly
rejected the earlier applications/appeals. It is submitted by the learned
APP that for delay in the Trial, the accused themselves are responsible.
She drawn attention of this Court to the panchanama and observations
by the Sessions Court from order below application Exhs. 451 and 459
filed by Vishal and Somnath. It is submitted that on various occasions
the appellants have filed appeals of similar nature. During the pandemic
period of Covid 19, the accused persons were released on temporary
bail. While on bail, they repeated the crime and committed various
offences which are registered at different police stations. Learned APP
thus submits that no case is made out for grant of bail. It is because of
(6) crap530.25
proceeding filed by accused Yogesh, there was delay as he was
absconding for six months from 02.06.2024 by running away from the
custody, while being taken to Court. As regards Somnath and Shoyab, it
is submitted that when they were on bail, they repeatedly breached the
conditions. They did not report the police station regularly. Their conduct
while on bail is also pointed out.
08. The learned APP in Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2025 and 223
of 2025 invited attention to the criminal antecedents of the appellants.
She submits that when the appellants were on bail, family of the
informant was receiving threats. The Court has already observed that
they are habitual offenders. She thus submits that no bail be granted.
09. This Court has seen various orders in various proceedings
filed before this Court. It is seen from such orders that the conduct of
the present appellants is also a reason for delay in the Trial. Learned
APP rightly pointed out Roznama dated 11.08.2025 and 19.08.2025 to
show the conduct of the accused person. It is submitted that the trial
could not be completed within a period of six months due to conduct of
the appellants.
(7) crap530.25
10. During the course of arguments, the parties relied upon
judgment Javed Gulam Nahi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
(2024) 9 SCC 813. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered grant of bail in the cases of Terrorism and Organized Crime,
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Ciourt
considered mandate of section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. It was a case where
accused were in custody. The charges were not framed for a long time.
In the said case the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future.
Though the appellants were facing trial under the provisions of UAP Act,
still bail was granted.
11. In the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3
SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered Article 21 r/w part III of
principles guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It is held that speedy
trial is part of Part III of the Constitution and Article 21 of the
Constitution. In that case the Trial was not concluded though the
accused was in custody, though suffered incarnation for significant period
of time.
12. In the present case this Court finds that though accused
persons are in custody, they were released on bail during Covid period.
(8) crap530.25
During that period again offences came to be registered of similar
nature. This Court thus finds force in the arguments of the learned APP
and learned Advocate appointed for the informant that no case is made
out to grant of bail.
13. The trial is not delayed only because of the prosecution. Even
accused persons are responsible for prolonging the Trial. Considering the
above this Court finds that no case is made out to allow the appeal. The
Criminal Appeals, therefore, stand dismissed.
14. Learned Trial Court is expected to finish the Trial within six
months from today. If the Trial is not completed within six months, the
appellants are at liberty to again approach this Court for bail.
15. This Court appreciates the efforts taken by learned Advocates
appointed for the informant. They shall be entitled to fees of Rs. 5000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand) in each petition, to be paid by High Court Legal
Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2025/Sep25/crap530.25
