1 929BA1223.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 929 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1223 OF 2026 Rohit Alias Rohidas Dadasaheb Jadhav VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ... Mr. Hanumant P. Jadhav - Advocate (Through Legal Aid) for Applicant Mr. V. K. Kotecha - APP for the State ... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. With the assistance of both of them, I have perused the Charge-sheet annexed to the present Application. 2. The present Applicant was arrested on 12.02.2023 in connection with C.R. No. 0087 of 2023 registered with Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule, for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the prosecution case that the Informant was engaged in the business of land levelling by utilising his Tractor. The present Applicant was the driver of the said Tractor. There were other owners who, together, used to look for work relating to land levelling. Therefore, while they were in the process of obtaining work for land levelling by visiting several farmers and agricultural fields, on the date of the incident, it is alleged that the present Applicant and the deceased had proceeded to look for such work. 2 929BA1223.2026.odt 4. On the said date, in the night, while under the influence of liquor, the deceased made a telephone call to the Informant, stating that the present Applicant was quarrelling with him and demanding his money. Thereafter, in the morning, the Informant was informed by Santosh Shendge that the dead body of the deceased was lying in an agricultural field. When the Informant reached the spot where the dead body was lying, he found that the deceased had sustained injuries and that the Tractor which he had taken along with him was parked nearby. The Applicant was not found anywhere. Therefore, on the basis of the quarrel reported by the deceased on the previous night and also by applying the theory of last seen together, the present Applicant has been arraigned as an accused in the present case. 5. The learned APP submits that four witnesses have already been examined and that Witness Nos. 5 and 6 have already been summoned. He thus submits that the trial has substantially progressed and, at this stage, releasing the Applicant would not be appropriate. The learned Advocate for the Applicant, however, submits that the Applicant has been in jail since 12.02.2023 and that, in case this Court is of the opinion that the trial can be concluded within a period of one (1) year from today, the present Application may be disposed of with liberty to the Applicant to prefer another Application after the expiry of one (1) year. 3 929BA1223.2026.odt 6. Though I have perused the entire case papers, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Application, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to allow the trial, which has already substantially progressed, to continue without releasing the Applicant at this stage. The learned Trial Court is requested to conclude the trial within a period of one (1) year from today. 7. In case no substantial progress is made in the trial for any reason, the Applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh application upon expiry of the said period. In case such an application is preferred, the same shall be decided on its own merits, taking into consideration the substantial progress achieved from the date of this order till the date of filing of such application, as well as the merits of the matter. 8. In view of the above, the Application, as on date, stands dismissed. 9. The fees of the learned Advocate appointed through Legal Aid, is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only], which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad Bench. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 11/09/2026 15:50:17