Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Kunal Mohan Mokashi vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 April, 2026
1
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.17516/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-01-2025
in BA No. 4611/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay]
KUNAL MOHAN MOKASHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 103682/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP, IA
No. 103686/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT & IA No. 103688/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 13-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Adv.
Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv.
Mr. Sidharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, AOR
Mr. Srirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Vinayak Aren, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Nigam, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The petitioner has been put to trial for the offence of murder
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, the “IPC”) and other offences under the IPC.
2.
Signature Not Verified
The incident in question is dated 27-6-2021. The petitioner is
in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner past almost 5 years.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.04.15
17:01:56 IST
Reason:
3. The parody of the situation is that in last 5 years, only 1
witness has been examined.
2
4. In the past, the petitioner had come before us praying for
bail.
5. We take notice of the order passed by this Court on 8-9-2025.
6. The same reads thus:-
“1. Delay condoned.
2. Exemption Applications are allowed.
3. The petitioner has been denied bail by the High Court in
connection with C.R. No.529/2021 registered with the Wakad Police
Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504,
506, 120B , 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, “the IPC”) respectively, under Sections 4(25) & (27)
of the Arms Act respectively, Sections 37(1), 135 and 142
respectively of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section 7 of the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.
4. The incident in question is dated 27-6-2021. This is
suggestive of the fact that the petitioner is in custody past
almost 4 years. One of the co-accused, who is alleged to have
been sitting in the car at the time of incident, was ordered to
be released on bail by this Court.
5. The petitioner – herein is the person against whom there
are direct allegations of assault. However, the matter of concern
is that although the Trial Court framed charge on 23-7-2024, yet
till this date not a single witness has been examined.
6. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing
for the State of Maharashtra that the prosecution intends to
examine as many as 15 witnesses. There are few eye-witnesses also
to the incident.
7. Having regard to the nature of the crime as alleged and the
role attributed to the petitioner, we are not persuaded to
exercise our discretion in so far as the plea for bail is
concerned. However, we direct the Trial Court concerned to ensure
that the trial is completed with judgment within a period of six
months from today. If the Trial Court is unable to complete the
trial within six months, it shall be open for the petitioner to
come back before us and pray for bail.
8. The Registry is directed to forward one copy each of this
order at the earliest to the Trial Court concerned including the
territorial High Court.
9. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands
disposed of.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
7. As we granted liberty to the petitioner to come back before
us, he has renewed his plea for bail. It is very unfortunate that
3
in last eight months, only one witness has been examined.
8. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, the learned counsel appearing for the
State submitted that the accused persons are responsible for delay
in the trial.
9. We would like to know in what manner they are responsible for
the delay. In this regard, we want the State to file affidavit
explaining why only one witness has been examined after our last
Order dated 8-9-2025, referred to above. One copy of the affidavit
that may be filed by the State shall be furnished well in advance
to Ms. Sana Raees Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
10. Put it next week on top of the Board.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) DY. REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)