PRAVIN VILAS YAMGAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
WP/737/2026 · 2026-09-28
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12077 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12077 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
12-WP-737-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 737 OF 2026 Pravin Vilas Yamgar ] Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another ] Respondents ..... Mr. Sandeep Koregave, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, A.P.P, for Respondents – State. .....
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C. :
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the Sessions Case expeditiously and in a time- bound manner, preferably within a period of three months.
2. The ground urged by the Petitioner for seeking expeditious disposal of the Sessions Case is that he apprehends that he would be bodily harmed by the accused. It is, however, an admitted position that the Petitioner has been provided protection by one armed 1/2 Shailaja SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Digitally signed by SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2026.09.29 10:59:24 +0530
12-WP-737-2026.doc Police Officer, along with two other Police personnel, who are guarding him round the clock.
3. As per the charge-sheet, a list of seventy-one witnesses has been furnished. Out of the said seventy-one witnesses, six witnesses have already been examined and the remaining witnesses are yet to be examined.
4. Considering the number of witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and the fact that only six witnesses have been examined so far, in our view, no case is made out for issuing a direction to the learned Sessions Court to dispose of the Sessions Case expeditiously and within the time stipulated by the Petitioner. We are also of the view that there is no sufficient reason to grant the relief sought in the present Petition.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the present Petition.
6. The Petition stands dismissed.
[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] [RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] 2/2 Shailaja