Kunal Mohan Mokashi vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 April, 2026

    0
    45
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Supreme Court – Daily Orders

    Kunal Mohan Mokashi vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 April, 2026

                                                             1
    
    
    
    
         ITEM NO.6                                 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)
    
         [TO BE TAKEN UP AT THE TOP OF THE BOARD]
         (IA No. 103682/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP, IA
         No. 103686/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
         JUDGMENT AND IA No. 103688/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
    
         Date : 20-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
    
         CORAM :
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
    
         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 Aniruddha Pande, AOR
                                            Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
                                            Mr. Vinayak Aren, Adv.
                                            Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Adv.
                                            Ms. Aishwarya Nigam, Adv.
    
                                  UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                     O R D E R
    

    1.
    Signature Not Verified
    Delay condoned.

    Digitally signed by
    VISHAL ANAND

    SPONSORED

    2.
    Date: 2026.04.20
    16:37:30 IST Exemption Applications are allowed.
    Reason:

    3. The petitioner has been denied regular bail by the High Court
    in connection with Crime Register No.529 of 2021 registered with
    Wakad Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under
    2

    Sections 302, 504, 506, 120B, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
    Code
    , 1860 (for short, “the IPC”), Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms
    Act respectively along with Sections 37(1), 135 and 142 of the
    Maharashtra Police Act respectively and Section 7 of the Criminal
    Law (Amendment) Act.

    4. Our order dated 13th April, 2026 speaks for itself.

    5. The same reads thus:-

    “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. The incident in question is dated 27-6-2021. The
    petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner
    past almost 5 years.

    3. The parody of the situation is that in last 5 years, only
    1 witness has been examined.

    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
    3

    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
    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”.

    6. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, referred to
    above, the State has filed an affidavit duly affirmed by the Police
    Sub-Inspector, Kalewadi Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, Police
    Commissionerate, Pune.

    7. We have looked into the contents of the affidavit.

    8. We are of the view that there has been an inordinate delay on
    the part of the State as well as the trial court in conducting the
    trial.

    9. The petitioner is in judicial custody past more than 5 years.

    4

    Even after the trial was transferred to the Court in Chinchwad, not
    a single witness has been examined so far.

    10. In view of the aforesaid, we are left with no other option but
    to exercise our discretion in favor of the petitioner.

    11. In the result, we direct that the petitioner be released on
    bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to terms
    and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.

    12. We direct the petitioner to regularly appear before the Trial
    Court on the dates fixed for the purpose of recording of the oral
    evidence.

    13. Let the trial proceed expeditiously.

    14. The trial court shall see to it that the trial is completed
    within a period of 6 months from today.

    15. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

    16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

      (VISHAL ANAND)                                      (POOJA SHARMA)
    DEPUTY REGISTRAR                                     COURT MASTER (NSH)
    



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here