1 20.ba.938.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.938 OF 2026 Chandrashekar s/o Panjabrao Atram ..vs.. State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri K.Y. Mandpe, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.M. Kadukar, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 07.09.2026. Heard. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.578 of 2021 registered with Ajni Police Station, District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B, 384, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2), 3(4), 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999, mainly on the ground of delay in trial. 3. The FIR came to be lodged alleging that the informant came in contact with the applicant in the year 2019 through one Sachin Kashyap for securing her daughter’s admission to an MBBS course. The informant allegedly paid approx. Rs.40,99,000/- to the accused persons over time, but the admission was not secured, and the money was not refunded. The applicant allegedly introduced the informant to other co-accused (doctors and intermediaries) to falsely assure the admission. Hence, the FIR against the accused persons for duping 2026:BHC-NAG:11821 2 20.ba.938.2026 the informant. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 01.12.2021 and therefore, his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is grossly violated. The Trial is yet to be concluded as only three witnesses are examined. Though there was some fault on the part of the advocate for the applicant, however the applicant personally cannot be blame for the delay and therefore, the application is prayed to be allowed. 5. On the other hand learned APP vehemently opposed the application by inviting my attention to the order dated 21.06.2025 of the Special Judge (MCOC Act) and Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur, particularly the observations made in paragraph no.10 of the said order, whereby the application filed by the applicant came to be rejected by observing that it was the applicant and his advocate who are responsible for the delay and therefore, he submitted that considering these observations, the present application also is prayed to be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the applicant is in jail since 01.12.2021. For proper consideration of the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to reproduce the orders passed below Exhibit 122 and Exhibit 1, dated 29.03.2025 and 16.04.2025 respectively : “ Order below Exh.122 (Passed on 29.03.2025) 3 20.ba.938.2026 1. Today the case is fixed for evidence and witness, i.e. informant - Dr. Shilpa Dhekle is present through V.C. for recording her evidence. It is now 12.30 p.m. At about 12.30 p.m., this application for adjournment is filed by Ld. Adv. Shri. A. G. Laddhad holding for advocate Shri. Tiwari for accused No.2. He submitted that advocate Shri. Tiwari is unable to attend this Court due to the schedule of examination of his daughter and he has to escort her to the examination center. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri. Moon for accused No.1 is absent though called out repeatedly. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri. Pardiya for accused No.4 is also absent though called out repeatedly. 4. This case is three years old, however due to the absence of advocate for accused evidence of witness cannot be recorded. Though reason for adjournment given in application by advocate Shri. Tiwari can be said to be reasonable, he has not informed his inability to attend Court in advance to prosecution and the witness; and therefore, the witness has attended the Sessions Court at Pune by travelling around 15-20 K.M. She is waiting for her turn since 11.00 a.m. and now at 12.30 p.m., this application for adjournment is filed. Other advocates for other two accused are also absent. It shows that the delay in trial is causing due to the non-co-operation of advocates for accused. 5. As stated above, due to the absence of advocates it will not be proper to record the evidence of prosecution to avoid any kind of prejudice to the accused. Therefore, the matter needs to be adjourned, but at the same time the witness needs to be compensated by directing witness Bhatta to her. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: - Order 4 20.ba.938.2026 1. The matter is adjourned subject to witness Bhatta of Rs.400/- by each accused, i.e. in total Rs.1200/- to witness Dr. Shilpa Dhekle. 2. The matter is adjourned till 16.04.2025 as per the request of Ld. Advocate for accused No.2 as he is not available in earlier dates.” And “Order below Exh.1 (Passed on 16.04.2025) 1. Today the case is fixed for evidence and witness, ie. informant Dr. Shilpa Dhekle is present through V.C. for recording her evidence. 2. Ld. SPP Shri. Kolhe is present. Ld. Adv. Shri. A. G. Laddhad holding for advocate Shri. Tiwari for accused No.2 is present. Ld. Advocate Shri. Nirav Pardiya for accused No.4 is also present. Ld. Advocate Shri. Moon for accused No.1 is absent though called out repeatedly. Accused No.1 and 4 are under-trial and are present though V.C., therefore accused No.1 cannot be asked to cross-examine witness in person. 3. On last three dates witness is present. Ld. Advocate Shri. Moon for accused No.1 is absent though called out repeatedly. The accused No.1 is under-trial and he is stated that he has instructed to his counsel to remain present in Court, but he is absent. 4. The evidence of informant is most crucial evidence in this case and if it is recorded in absence of learned advocate for accused it may cause prejudice to accused. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to record evidence in absence of learned advocate for accused no.1 though the absence for advocate for accused is prima facie appears to be intentional. As per the professional ethics and rules of Bar Council, the Ld. Advocate for accused is duty bound to present before this 5 20.ba.938.2026 Court, particularly when the accused is under- trial prisoner. 5. As stated earlier it will not be in the interest of justice to record evidence in absence of learned advocate for accused, I am constrained to adjourn the matter. As this adjournment is caused inconvenience to informant witness, the accused No.1 is liable to pay the witness bhatta. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: - Order 1. The matter is adjourned subject to witness Bhatta of Rs.1200/- by accused No.1 to witness Dr. Shilpa Dhekle. 2. On next date if Ld. Advocate Shri. Moon for accused No.1 remained absent without informing any reason to this Court, his conduct be communicated to the Bar Council for appropriate action. 3. Next date, i.e. 2.05.2025 is given with consent of all advocates present considering their convenience.” 7. On perusal of the said orders it appears that it is the applicant and the advocate who are creating hurdle in the proceedings by remaining constantly absent. 8. Considering the above observations of the Special Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, even on the ground of delay in trial. Hence, the application stands rejected. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 19:34:31