Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vicky Rajendra Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.12 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
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.)
NO(S). 2335/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 24-10-2024 in CRAST No. 14333/2024 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay]
VICKY RAJENDRA JADHAV PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 30085/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 30087/2025 -
EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 24-07-2025 This matter was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the court made the
following
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified parties and perused the pleadings.
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Date: 2025.07.24
16:50:47 IST
Reason: SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 2335/2025 1
2. The petitioner is involved in a
case pursuant to C.R. No.41 of 2022
dated 21.02.2022 registered at P.S.
Shirwal, District Satara, Maharashtra
under Section 302 of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act.
3. The case involves a total of nine
persons out of which A3, A5, A6, A7
and A8 have been granted bail by
different orders.
4. The petitioner was arrested on
21.02.2022 and is in jail ever since
then, i.e. for more than three years.
5. On the last occasion, the Court
had permitted the trial Court to frame
the charges within two months, but
till date, charges have not been
framed. Learned counsel for the State
of Maharashtra informs that the
charges could not be framed, as the
accused persons have moved
SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 2335/2025 2
applications particularly, an
application for discharge by A7.
6. Be that as it may, the fact
remains that the trial has not
commenced and is likely to take
sufficient time. The petitioner has
suffered incarceration for more than
three years. He has not been assigned
the role of shooting the deceased.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we consider it
appropriate to enlarge petitioner on
bail.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is
directed to be released on bail
subject to such terms and conditions
as may be imposed by the trial Court
commensurating with the charges framed
against him, provided he cooperates
with the trial and appears before the
trial Court as and when required.
SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 2335/2025 3
9. The Special Leave Petition is
disposed of accordingly. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Nidhi Mathur) (Geeta Ahuja)
Court Master (NSH) AR-cum-PS
SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 2335/2025 4
[ad_1]
Source link
