[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Suresh Chanduji Patrikar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps ... on 25 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4919
Order 250326ba281.26
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 281 OF 2026.
Suresh Chanduji Patrikar.
-VERSUS-
The State of Maharashtra.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri M.N. Ali, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri A.Chutke, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.
Shri R.S. Gade, Advocate h/f. Shri V.A. Darne, Advocate
Assisting Prosecution.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : MARCH 25, 2026.
Heard.
2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with
Crime No.59/2022 registered with Yavatmal Police Station,
Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
149, 302, 323, 324, 506, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code,
Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
3. The first information report was lodged by one
Anuprita Divre, alleging that she is the Sarpanch of Gram
Rgd.
Order 250326ba281.26
Panchayat Bhambraja. There was a dispute regarding election of the
President of the College, wherein her husband was threatened with
dire consequences. Report was lodged with the police and
proceedings in that respect are pending before the Court. There
was a drive to remove encroachments in the village, in which the
encroachment by one Shri Jaiswal was removed. The applicant
along with other co-accused went to the house of the informant and
called upon them to restore the encroachment, when her husband
refused to do so, Rohit Bhopde who was armed with a gun, fired
two shots in the air, one at the wall and two at the chest and thigh of
the informants' husband. The applicant had caught hold of the
deceased, other accused assaulted her husband by means of an axe
on his head, and by means of iron rod and fist and kick blows.
When the informant went to save her husband, she was also
assaulted by an axe by the accused persons. The accused persons
also assaulted her son. The injured husband was taken to hospital,
where he was declared dead, and therefore, the report came to be
filed.
4. Basically the present application is filed on the ground
of delay in trial and parity. This case has a checkered history. The
applicant for the first time approached this Court by filing Criminal
Application (BA) No.665/2022, and this Court by order dated
Rgd.
Order 250326ba281.26
24.08.2022 has rejected the said application on merits. Thereafter,
second bail application was filed before this Court vide Criminal
Application (BA) No.782/2023, and again this Court by order
dated 24.01.2024 rejected the said application filed by the
applicant. The applicant thereafter, approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) Nos.6573-
6574/2024, wherein the Supreme Court has while declining to
interfere with the impugned order, passed the following order.
" Delay Condoned.
We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and hence, the special leave
petitions are dismissed.
However, the petitioner has expressed concern
that the chargesheet was filed in March 2022, but for
more than two years ago, the arguments on charge
have not been heard. We request the trial court to
take up the case as expeditiously as possible.
Pending application[s], if any, shall stand
disposed of."
5. Thereafter, the applicant has approached the trial Court
by filing an application at Exh.158 in Special Case No.69/2022
raising a ground of delay in trial. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Yavatmal by his order dated 22.04.2025, rejected the said
application of the applicant. The applicant again approached this
Court by filing third application bearing Criminal Application (BA)
No.682/2025, praying for grant of bail on the ground of delay in
Rgd.
Order 250326ba281.26
trial, and this Court by its order dated 31.07.2025 rejected the said
bail application by recording reasons in paragraph nos.12 and 15,
which are as under :
" 12. The Roznama on record shows that
since 9.11.2023 various applications are filed
including applications for grant of bail and for
discharge. On some of occasions, the accused
persons remained absent who are released on bail,
and, therefore, the charge could not be framed. The
Roznama further shows that adjournment
applications are also filed by the accused persons for
hearing on discharge applications.
13. ...
14. ...
15. In the light of the above observations,
perusal of the Roznama reveals that the trial is
delayed as various applications are filed by the
accused persons including the discharge applications,
on various occasions adjournments are sought, and
on various occasions accused persons on bail were
not present and, therefore, the charge could not be
framed. Learned Judge of the trial court has also
noted this fact and also noted that considering the
accused is behind the bars for more than three years,
charge can be framed expeditiously and the trial can
be disposed of. The directions can be given to
learned Judge of the trial court to dispose of the trial
expeditiously by framing the charge."
6. Thereafter again the applicant has approached the
Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)
No.15223/2025, by raising the same ground of delay in trial,
Rgd.
Order 250326ba281.26
however, the Supreme Court by its order dated 09.10.2025 has
rejected his application by recording following observations :
" 1. The High Court by the impugned
judgment and order dated 31st July 2025, while
refusing the petitioner's prayer for bail, has noticed
in paragraph no.12 and 15 thereof the reasons why
the trial has been delayed.
2. We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the High Court hence, the
special leave petition stands dismissed.
3. However, the trial court may proceed for
framing of charges as early as possible. Once the
charges are framed, the petitioner shall be at liberty
to apply afresh for bail before the trial Court.
4. Pending application[s], if any, shall stand
disposed of."
7. As liberty was granted to the applicant to apply afresh
before the trial Court after framing of charge, the applicant
accordingly moved an application after framing of charge at
Exh.259 in Sessions Case No.69/2022, however, by order dated
29.01.2026, the trial Court has rejected the said application of the
applicant. It appears from the record that the applicant has also
moved an application for grant of interim bail on medical ground,
however, said application also came to be rejected on the very same
day i.e. 29.01.2026.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant
submits that this Court by order passed in Criminal Application
Rgd.
Order 250326ba281.26
(BA) No.1349/2025 dated 22.01.2026 has granted bail to one of
the co-accused i.e. Vaibhav Prabhakar Sonankar, therefore, even
present applicant deserves to be granted bail on the same ground on
which bail was granted to Vaibhav. My attention is invited to
observations recorded in paragraph no.7 of the said order. It is his
further submission that merely the applicant has approached the
Supreme Court, that by itself is not sufficient to deny him bail on
parity. The Supreme Court has granted liberty to apply a fresh after
framing of charges and therefore, the applicant has moved an
application before the trial Court on the ground of delay in trial,
however, the same was rejected. Lastly, it is his submission that
considering the fact that the applicant is behind bars since
04.06.2022 and the fact that there is no substantial progress in the
trial, the applicant be released on bail.
9. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the non-applicant /
State and learned Counsel assisting prosecution have vehemently
opposed the application by submitting that so far as parity is
concerned, it is not applicable to the case of the present applicant in
view of the fact that he has approached the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court has accepted the observations recorded by this
Court in paragraph nos.12 and 15 of the order impugned before it,
in respect of the present applicant, wherein his application on the
Rgd.
Order 250326ba281.26
ground of delay was rejected. It is their submission that so far as the
observations in the case of Vaibhav are concerned, the same will not
be made applicable to the present case in view of the fact that the
Supreme Court has confirmed the order of this Court passed in
Criminal Application (BA) No.682/2025, which was rejected by
this Court vide order dated 31.07.2025 of which the relevant
observations are already reproduced above.
10. They further submit that time and again the applicant
has approached the trial Court, this Court as well as the Supreme
Court, however, his prayer for grant of bail was rejected by all the
Courts. It is the applicant who has caused delay by filing various
applications, and even this was observed in the order dated
31.07.2025, therefore, considering the observations by the Supreme
Court, the observations recorded by this Court in the case of
Vaibhav cannot be made applicable to the present applicant. They
submit that the trial has substantially progressed and even three
witnesses have been examined. Hence, they pray for dismissal of
the application.
11. I have heard the rival submissions of the parties and
with their able assistance gone through the relevant material on
record. Admittedly for the first time the applicant has approached
this Court by filing Criminal Application (BA) No.665/2022,
Rgd.
Order 250326ba281.26
however, the same came to be rejected on merits on 24.08.2022.
Thereafter, again the applicant approached this Court by filing
Criminal Application (BA) No.782/2023, but, the same was also
rejected on 24.01.2024. The applicant has thereafter approached
the Supreme Court, and even the Supreme Court has declined to
entertain the prayer of the applicant, however, it requested the trial
Court to take up the trial as expeditiously as possible. The applicant
has filed another bail application before the trial Court on the
ground of delay in trial, and the same was rejected by the trial Court
by its order dated 22.04.2025. The applicant again approached this
Court by filing Criminal Application (BA) No.682/2025, and this
Court by order dated 31.07.2025, has rejected said application.
Against said order, the applicant once again approached the
Supreme Court, however, the Supreme Court observed that the
High Court by the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2025 while
refusing the petitioner's prayer for bail, has noticed in paragraph 12
and 15 thereof the reasons why the trial has been delayed, and
accordingly the Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the
impugned order before it. Liberty was granted to the applicant to
apply afresh before the trial Court once charges are framed. The
order of the Supreme Court speaks in unequivocal terms that it has
confirmed the reasons recorded by this Court in order dated
Rgd.
Order 250326ba281.26
31.07.2025, which are already reproduced above. Thereafter, in
view of the liberty granted to the applicant by the Supreme Court,
he moved the trial Court again and even this time also the trial
Court has rejected his application. As a result of which, the
applicant is before this Court.
12. It appears from the record that though the Supreme
Court has granted liberty to apply once again before the trial Court
after framing of charge, however, now the trial has already
commenced and three witnesses have been examined. Under such
circumstances, and considering the above background, it is not
desirable to grant bail.
13. However, if the observations of this Court recorded in
case of Vaibhav is concerned, the same would not be made
applicable to the present case in view of the fact that already the
Special Leave to Appeal of the applicant was dismissed by the
Supreme Court by confirming the reasons recorded by this Court in
its order dated 31.07.2025.
13. Therefore, considering the above facts and
circumstances that though the applicant is behind bar since
04.06.2022. The Supreme Court has already requested the trial
Court to take up the case as early as possible, and accordingly now
charges are framed and three witnesses have been examined. The
Rgd.
Order 250326ba281.26
applicant has approached the Trial Court, this Court and the
Supreme Court twice, and the Supreme Court has declined to
consider his request for grant of bail on the ground of delay in trial,
I am not inclined to consider his request for grant of bail on the
same ground once again. Criminal Application is accordingly
rejected.
JUDGE
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation:Rgd.
PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/03/2026 16:54:15
