IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2981 OF 2025 Vishal Vijay Sawant ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents _______________________________________________________

Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle, for the Applicant.

Mr. Sameer M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.

_______________________________________________________

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATE : 27th MAY, 2025 P.C. :-

1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Sameer Mangaonkar, learned APP for Respondent-State.

2. By the present Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the Petitioner assails the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadgaon Maval, Pune, in in Special Case No.239 of 2022, by which the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the Application for discharge filed by the Petitioner. While rejecting the Application seeking discharge filed by the Petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Petitioner. Paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 are transcribed hereunder:

"10. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage amount to rape. The material on record prima-facie shows that accused committed rape by giving false promise of marriage. There is sufficient material to proceed further. It is a well settled principle of law that a charge can be framed even on the basis of prima-facie material. The necessary all ingredients are made out. Hence, discharge application deserves to be rejected. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in negative. For vesting valuable time of the Court cost needs to be imposed on the accused. Offence is of year 2020. Charge-sheet was filed in year 2021. Roznama shows that the accused and his advocate remained absent from long time after releasing on bail. On 30.01.2024 NBW of accused was cancelled. Thereafter, matter was posted for charge. No next date 04.04.2024 accused and his advocate remained absent. On 19.10.2024 again accused remained absent. Hence, NBW was issued against him. On 22.11.2024 he cancelled the NBW. On next date 28.01.2025 he preferred this application for discharge.

11. After 30.07.2024 the discharge application will be governed by new Code BNSS. In the said act a time limit of two months from the date of filing of the charge-sheet is prescribed for preferring discharge application. Discharge application was filed on 28.01.2025. Thus, on the day of filing of discharge application Exh. 8 on 28.01.2025 will be governed by provisions of BNSS i.e. barred by limitation as appeared in this Court on 30.01.2024 for getting NBW cancelled. Thus, the intention is clear to protract the trial hence, costs of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on the accused.

12. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following order -

ORDER

1]Application Exh. 8 is hereby rejected.

2]Cost of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on accused. In case accused fails to deposit cost of Rs.50,000/- on or before next date his bail application will be cancelled.

Next date 28.04.2025.

This order is explained to the accused in the open Court."

3. I do not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the learned Sessions Court in the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed in Special Case No.239 of 2022, while dismissing the Application for discharge filed by the Petitioner. 4. Mr. Vaibhav Ugle, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the imposition of cost of Rs. 50,000/- in the impugned order, according to him is exemplary cost and in the circumstances harsh. He submits that the accused in a criminal proceeding is entitled to maintain an Application seeking discharge. He, however, states that though the Petitioner was absent on the date fixed for hearing resulting in issuing of NBW, he states that the Petitioner does not intend to delay the disposal