1 35-revn-175-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 175 OF 2025 Akshay Tatyarao Kodape and others Versus State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri A.S.Band, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. R.V.Sharma, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026. Heard Shri Band, learned counsel for the applicant. Though there are several grounds raised in the revision application against the framing of the charge by the learned trial Court vide order dated 14.08.2025, Shri Band, learned counsel for the applicants upon instructions submits that the limited grievance of the applicants herein is that applicants were not even heard before framing of the charge, which is the procedure to be followed by the learned trial Court by giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants before framing of the charge. He relied upon the roznama dated 29.07.2025 to show that the matter SKNair 2 35-revn-175-25.odt was fixed for hearing on the application Exhibits 59 and 61. Shri Band, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the application Exhibit 61 was filed by accused nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 15 and 17 to 23 for separation of the trial from other accused persons. The rojnama dated 29.07.2025 shows that the matter was kept for hearing of Exhibit 61 on 01.08.2025. However, suddenly on 01.08.2025, the matter was fixed for framing of the charge on 14.08.2025. On 14.08.2025, the charges were framed by the learned trial Court. Thus, according to Shri Band, learned counsel for the applicants a procedure to be followed by the learned trial Court only in violation of the settled law that the opportunity of hearing should be granted to the accused person before framing of the charge. The application for separation of trial Exhibit 61 is still pending before the learned trial Court and the trial Court thus could not frame the charge before deciding the application Exhibit 61. He therefore prays for quashing of the order of framing of the charge dated 14.08.2025. Learned counsel upon instructions submits that the applicants undertake to remain present for hearing on the date of framing of the charge as and when directed by this Court. SKNair 3 35-revn-175-25.odt 2. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the present revision application and submits that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the applicants to remain present and that they were, in fact, present when the charge was framed. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to accused Nos. 1 to 8, 10, 12 to 15 and 18 to 23 in vernacular, whereupon they stated that they understood the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court framed the charge after following the prescribed procedure and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused persons. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relies upon the Roznama dated 01.08.2025, which, according to her, clearly records that the matter was fixed for framing of charge on 14.08.2025, and that the charge was thereafter framed on 14.08.2025 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants/accused persons. It is further submitted that merely because the application at Exhibit 61 seeking separation of trial had not been decided, the same would not invalidate the framing of charge, as the question of separation of trial could be considered even thereafter. It is submitted that the charge was framed against the accused persons who were present before the learned Trial Court on 14.08.2025. SKNair 4 35-revn-175-25.odt As regards the other accused persons, the case was kept for framing of charge against absconding accused Nos. 9, 11, 16 and 17, who were not present on 14.08.2025. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, submits that no case is made out for interference by this Court and prays for rejection of the present revision application. 3. I have gone through the roznama dated 01.08.2025 and the order dated 14.08.2025. The record shows that this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 has stayed the Session Case No. 52 of 2018. The limited grievance of the applicants appears to be that the applicants were not heard while charge was framed vide order dated 14.08.2025. The record shows that matter was fixed for hearing on Exhibit 61 which was filed for separate of trial by accused nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 15 and 17 to 23. The roznama dated 29.07.2025 shows that the matter was fixed for hearing at Exhibit-59 and Exhibit-61, and the next date was granted as 01.08.2025. The roznama dated 01.08.2025 shows that the hearing was conducted at Exhibit-59; however, there is no mention of any hearing at Exhibit-61. Thereafter, the matter was suddenly posted for hearing on charge, as reflected in the roznama dated 14.08.2025. Thus, there is no reference to the hearing at Exhibit-61, and the matter was suddenly fixed SKNair 5 35-revn-175-25.odt for framing of charge on 30.08.2025. The roznama dated 01.08.2025 and 14.08.2025 does not show that any order was passed on Exhibit 61, either allowing or rejecting the said application for separation of trial. Thus, in my opinion the learned trial Court has failed to grant any opportunity of hearing to the applicants and without deciding the application Exhibit 61 filed by the applicants herein had gone ahead to frame the charge vide order dated 14.08.2025. Shri Band, learned counsel for the applicant upon such statement makes a statement that all the applicant undertake to remain present before the learned trial Court for framing of charge on any date if so directed by this Court. 4. Thus, taking into consideration that applicants were admittedly not heard before framing of the charge, I am inclined to pass the following order. ORDER i. The Criminal Revision is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 14.08.2025 framing of the charge against the applicant nos. 1 to 19, is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The applicants shall remain present before the learned trial Court on 03.10.2026. SKNair 6 35-revn-175-25.odt iv. The learned trial Court shall give an opportunity of hearing to the applicants both on Exhibit 61 as well as framing of the charge. v. The learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the application Exhibit 61 as early as possible and not beyond the period of two months from the date of appearance i.e. 03.10.2026. vi. The learned trial Court shall frame a charge, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the applicants herein. vii. The revision application is disposed of accordingly. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair