1 54BA764.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 54 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 764 OF 2026 Chandrakant Bhagwat Gore VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ... Mr. Rahul P. Mote - Advocate for Applicant Mr. D. J. Patil - APP for the State ... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. By the last order, this Court had directed the learned Trial Court to submit a report regarding the progress of the trial. The report has been received on 17.06.2026, categorically stating that effective steps are being taken to proceed with the trial. However, on some dates, the learned Advocate for the Applicant himself was not present, while on some dates, the Investigating Officer had not produced the accused before the Trial Court. 3. The learned APP has invited my attention to the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 2253 of 2025. He submits that, while disposing of the said application as withdrawn, this 2026:BHC-AUG:39623 2 54BA764.2026.odt Court had categorically granted liberty to the Applicant to file a fresh application after one year, in case the trial did not progress. 4. The learned APP submits that the present Applicant has approached this Court within two months of the said order and, therefore, the present application is not maintainable, particularly when, on merits, this Court was not inclined to entertain the earlier Bail Application. 5. I have perused the order dated 13.02.2026 as well as the report submitted by the learned Trial Court. Taking into consideration the liberty granted while permitting withdrawal of Bail Application No. 2253 of 2025, the period of one year is yet to expire. The present application is, therefore, not maintainable, particularly when, on merits, this Court was not inclined to entertain the Bail Application and the learned Advocate for the Applicant, upon instructions from the Applicant, had chosen to withdraw the same. The present application, therefore, could not have been filed within a period of two months, once again reiterating that the trial was not progressing. Secondly, the report indicates that certain stages of the trial have already been completed and that the trial is likely to proceed expeditiously and conclude. 6. One aspect which also needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that, during the trial, the accused are not being produced 3 54BA764.2026.odt from the jail before the Trial Court and the Advocates representing the accused are also not remaining present. One year period that has been granted for submitting application excludes the default on the part of the accused. However, that does not mean that the accused should be produced before the Trial Court. It is the duty of the Jail authorities to produce the accused persons before the trial court on the date of trial failing which there is clear contravention of Section 346 of the BNS for which Jail authorities should be taken to task by the Trial Court. 7. With these observations, the present application is dismissed. 8. Liberty is granted to the Applicant to file a fresh application upon expiry of one year from the date of withdrawal of the earlier application i.e. 13.02.2026, after excluding the period during which the trial is adjourned on account of failure on the part of the Applicant or his Advocate. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 01/09/2026 15:23:07