[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sopan Sanjay Lilhare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps ... on 3 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1699
1 CRI. APEAL 310-2025-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2025
Sopan Sanjay Lilhare,
Aged about-24 years,
Occu-Labourer,
R/o. Bhosa naka, Yavatmal,
Tq.-Yavatmal, Dist-Yavatmal ... Appellant
.. Versus ..
1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Awdhootwadi, Yavatmal,
Tq-Yavatmal, Dist-Yavatmal
2) Sangita Satish Kaithwas,
Aged about - 52 years,
Occu- Housewife,
R/o Indira nagar, Bhosa naka,
Yavatmal, Tq-Yavatmal,
Dist-Yavatmal ...Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S.Mardikar, Sr. Advocate a/b. Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate
for Appellant.
Shri B.M.Lonare, APP for Respondent/State.
Shri M.P.Kariya, Advocate for Respondent no. 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30/01/2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 03/02/2026
2 CRI. APEAL 310-2025-J.odt
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short, 'SC & ST Act') is against the
order dated 12/03/2025 passed below Exh. 140 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case No.
96/2023, rejecting the regular bail application of the Appellant,
who is charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 120(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
'I.P.C.'), Section 3 r/w. Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and
Sections 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST Act and Section 39 of
the Maharashtra Money Lending Act.
2. The case of the prosecution as seen from the final
report is that, out of the money lending transactions between the
mother of deceased Akshay Kaithwas and the co-accused Laxmi
@ Hasina Lilhare, the accused persons committed the murder of
informant's son on 10/06/2023.
3. It submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the
Appellant that, though the statements of the witnesses were
recorded during the course of investigation, their statements do
3 CRI. APEAL 310-2025-J.odt
not show that, they are actually the witnesses to the incident.
Secondly, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the
Appellant. Thirdly, there is delay in the trial, as for about 103
times, the Appellant was not produced before the Court, and on
24 dates, the learned Trial Court was not available, and till date,
the charge is not framed. He urged that, the Appeal be allowed.
4. The Appeal is opposed by the learned APP for the
State and the learned Advocate for Respondent no. 2 - informant.
They submitted that, the incident is captured in the CCTV
camera, of which footages were secured, which shows the active
role of the Appellant in the commission of crime. They submitted
that, considering the nature of the evidence, the Appeal be
dismissed.
5. Though the ground of non-communication of the
reasons was raised at the time of first hearing of the Appeal, on
the subsequent date, the said ground was not pressed in the light
of the decision of the learned Single Bench of this Court dated
12/12/2025 in the group of bail applications (BA No.199/2025
and 6 other BA's), which was argued by the learned Senior
Advocate.
4 CRI. APEAL 310-2025-J.odt
6. Perusal of the final report shows that, the criminal
proceedings were set in motion by lodging a report on
11/06/2023 with Awdhutwadi Police Station, District Yavatmal in
respect of the murder of the deceased. During the course of
investigation, the investigating machinery seized the footage of
CCTV camera at the place of incident. The CCTV camera
captured the incident. A memorandum/panchanama (transcript)
of the said CCTV footage was prepared. The CCTV footage
shows that, the Appellant and the co-accused came to the spot of
the incident in a four-wheeler where the deceased was sitting on
a chair, and dashed the said vehicle to the deceased. The
Appellant came out with an iron rod and assaulted the deceased
with an iron rod and further the Appellant followed the deceased
when the deceased ran to save himself. It further shows that, the
Appellant caught hold of the deceased, and the co-accused fired
from the firearm on the deceased. During the course of the
investigation, ash of the burnt clothes of the Appellant were
seized at the instance of the Appellant. This material in the
charge-sheet shows a strong prima facie case against the
Appellant.
5 CRI. APEAL 310-2025-J.odt
7. As regards the ground of delay in trial is concerned,
the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Union of
India V/s. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, wherein
the aspect of speedy trial is considered and it is observed that,
"once it is obvious that, a timely trial would not be
possible and the accused has suffered incarceration
for a significant period of time, the courts would
ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail".
8. Undisputedly, the offence of murder under which the
charge-sheet is filed, attracts the minimum punishment of
imprisonment for life. In the case at hand, the Appellant is
arrested on 11/06/2023. Perusal of the copies of Roznama
tendered across the bar by the learned Senior Advocate for the
Appellant shows that, the application for discharge is pending
and on 23/01/2026, say was filed by the informant/complainant
on the discharge application and the stage of the case is shown
as 'Hearing'. Perusal of the same shows that, the matter was kept
by the learned Trial Court at short intervals. From the said
Roznama, it appears that, there are 9 accused persons. It would
thus be appropriate to request the learned Trial Court to expedite
the proceedings in the Sessions case.
6 CRI. APEAL 310-2025-J.odt
9. In view of the above discussions, in my view, the
Appellant is not entitled for bail on merit, however, considering
that, he is behind bar for a period of two (2) and half (½) years
and the charge-sheet is filed, the learned Trial Court to expedite
the matter. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
B.T.K.
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/02/2026 13:05:09
