1/3 914-BA-953-2026(CR).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.953 OF 2026 Abhijit Shivaji More ….Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra and Anr. ....Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Ranjit Patil a/w Mr. Shailesh Chavan, Mr. Prathamesh Bankar and Ms. Swarrali B. Chougule, for Applicant. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 16th OCTOBER, 2026. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State. 2. Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, seeks bail primarily on the ground of long incarceration. 3. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2– State, strongly opposes the said ground for bail. By referring to page No. 26, more particularly paragraph No.6 of the order dated 1st November, 2025, he submits that the ground of long incarceration is not available to Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.10.17 13:54:05 +0530 2/3 914-BA-953-2026(CR).DOC the Applicant in view of the reasons recorded by the Trial Court in the said paragraph. Paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 1st November 2025 passed by the District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2023, reads thus: “06. So far, as regards the progress of the trial, this court is continuously inquiring with the accused for conducting the trial. However, accused denied to start the trial. Therefore, accused cannot contend that there is no progress in the trial. It is fault of the accused. He opposed to start the trial. So, the accused cannot take ground of long detention for release him on bail. Hence, I find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused.” 4. Faced with the said objection raised by Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State, Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ritesh Ramesh Desai Vs. The State of Maharashtra1, wherein it has been observed that, if a party feels that the happenings before a Court have not been correctly recorded, the same must be brought to the notice of that Court. Based on the said decision, Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, seeks leave to withdraw this Bail Application, with liberty to file an appropriate Application before the Trial Court seeking correction of paragraph No. 6 of the order, which, according to him, is not based on the record / Roznama. 1 Criminal Writ Petition No.672 of 2026 decided on 27th February, 2026. Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/3 914-BA-953-2026(CR).DOC 5. In view of the above statement made by Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, leave is granted to withdraw the present Application with liberty as prayed for. 6. Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that the Applicant shall file an appropriate Application before the Sessions Court within one week from today. He, therefore, requests that the Sessions Court be directed to decide the same expeditiously. If such an Application is filed before the Trial Court within one week from today, the Trial Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously, and in any event, within three weeks from the first date of hearing fixed in the said Application, on its own merits and in accordance with law. 7. Criminal Bail Application No.953 of 2026 is disposed of as withdrawn. 8. All contentions of the Applicant are left open. ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum