IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 426 OF 2025 BAPURAO GYANBA SONKAMBLE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. T. S. Kotkar, Advocate for the applicant (appointed) Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 20th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. This application is filed by the applicant, who is in jail, seeking clubbing of the proceedings arising out of Crime Nos. 230/2017, registered with Kalamnuri Police Station, 407/2017, registered with Hingoli Police Station, 47/2018, registered with Paithan Police Station, 686/2017, registered with Jalna Police Station, 71/2018, registered with Beed Police Station, 157/2018, registered with Ausa Latur Police Station, 19/2018, registered with Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad, 833/2017, registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, and 380/2018, registered with Akkalkot North Police Station, and transfer of the said proceedings to one Court. 2. The applicant is the Director of Shubh Kalyan Multi State Co-operative Credit Society Limited. There is an allegation against the present applicant as well as the co-accused that by giving false promises of attractive interest on 920 APPLN 426.2025.odt 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:37890 fixed deposits, they induced the public at large to deposit their amounts in the Society and subsequently, the invested amounts were misappropriated. At different places, offences came to be registered against them. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheets came to be filed before different Courts. As per the contention of the applicant himself, Crime Nos. 230/2017 and 407/2017 are pending at Hingoli, are at the stage of evidence, whereas the other proceedings are at different stages, including appearance, evidence, arguments, etc. The applicant claims that in order to ensure that there are no diverse or conflicting orders/judgments and also in view of the fact that the applicant would be required to appear before different Courts, all these proceedings are sought to be clubbed together and transferred to one Court in District Latur. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail and that, in connection with similar crimes, he would be required to appear before different Courts and, as such, there is a possibility of conflicting orders being passed by different Courts in the said proceedings. He, therefore, seeks that all the proceedings be transferred to one Court. In order to support this submission, he placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Kedu Parkhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in Criminal Application No. 2756 of 2021, decided on 15.02.2023, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod 920 APPLN 426.2025.odt 2 of 4 Bhaichand Raisoni and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., in Writ Petition No. 2784/2018, dated 02.05.2019, as well as in the case of Laxmikant Shrikrushna Narvekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, in Writ Petition No. 6165/2019 with connected matters, dated 21.07.2025. 4. Learned APP for the Respondent/State opposed the application by contending that in each crime, different statements have been recorded and the evidence of other witnesses would also be different. It is his contention that the stages of trial in these cases are different and, hence, clubbing of the proceedings before one Court would result in delay in disposal of the same. According to him this could be intention of applicant. It is further argued that there is no straight-jacket formula that in every case where a number of offences are registered against one accused, all the cases are required to be decided together. 5. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition sought to be canvassed by the learned Advocate for the applicant that ordinarily, in case of similar crimes being registered at different places, it is advisable that all such cases are decided by one Court. However, this is principle is not sacrosanct as it would be applied in all cases, irrespective of peculiarity of case. As per the material placed before this Court, out of 13 cases, two cases are at the stage of evidence, and one of the cases is at the stage of part-heard evidence, whereas the other cases are not even ready for hearing. This Court, therefore, finds 920 APPLN 426.2025.odt 3 of 4 substance in the contention of the learned APP that clubbing of all these cases would be counter productive and would only lead to a stalemate in the proceedings, and even part heard cases would not be heard and decided. If the Court finds that clubbing of such matters and placing the same before one Court is likely to cause injustice, no such order should be passed. In the case of Laxmikant Shrikrushna Narvekar (supra), the order passed by the Division Bench indicates that the said order was passed with the consent of the parties. One more aspect which requires consideration is that if the witnesses can be allowed to appear before the Trial Court through video conferencing, the same principle can also be applied, in appropriate cases, to the accused. In any case, since the applicant is in jail, he can appear before different Courts through video conferencing. 6. Considering the peculiar facts involved in this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has failed to make out any case for allowing the application. Hence, the application stands dismissed. 7. The fees of the appointed learned Advocate for the applicant are quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 920 APPLN 426.2025.odt 4 of 4