[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Kunal Mohan Mokashi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2025
1
ITEM NO.61 COURT NO.8 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.29754/2025
[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
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 195306/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP, IA
No. 195307/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING SLP, IA
No. 195304/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT & IA No. 195305/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 18-08-2025 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) :
Mr. Prakash Naik, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Yeshwant Kulkarni, AOR
Mr. Sanket Salunkhe, Adv.
Mr. Nakul Patwardhan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned
2. Exemption Applications are allowed.
3. The petitioner has been denied regular bail in connection with
C.R. No.529 of 2021 registered with the Wakad Police Station, Pune
for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506, 120B, 201
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively (for
Date: 2025.08.26
19:30:39 IST
Reason:
short, “the IPC”), Sections 4(25) & (27) of the Arms Act, 1959
respectively, Sections 37(1), 135 and 142 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, 1951 respectively and Section 7 of the Criminal Law
2
4. The date of incident is 27-6-2021.
5. We are informed that the petitioner is in judicial custody as
an under-trial prisoner past almost 4 years and 2 months.
6. One of the accused was ordered to be released on bail vide
order dated 19-7-2024 essentially on the ground that the trial
court had not been able to even frame charge.
7. Mr. Prakash Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner brought to our notice that the charge came to be framed
almost 1 year back, however, not a single prosecution witness has
been examined so far.
8. We would like to know that if the charge came to be framed
almost a year back, then why the prosecution has not been able to
produce their witnesses.
9. We would like to know from the Trial Court why it has not been
able to commence with the recording of the evidence.
10. We would also like to know from the State as to how many
prosecution witnesses it intends to examine in the course of the
trial.
11. Issue notice, returnable on 8-9-2025.
12. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
13. Liberty is granted to serve the Standing counsel for the State
of Maharashtra.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[ad_2]
Source link