Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 11399
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UJJAL BHUYAN, K VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ
ROHIT P. KOLI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ___________OF 2025 | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 4935 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja
For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Mr. Shrirang B. Varma
The court ruled that prolonged incarceration without trial justifies bail despite the conduct of co-accused.
Headnote:This judgment concerns the appeal of the appellant against the refusal of bail, with specific reference to the provisions of the Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act, highlighting that other co-accused have been granted bail and the charges are yet to be framed. The court specifically considered the lengthy incarceration of the appellant and concluded that the appellant is entitled to bail under such circumstances, directing that he be produced before the trial court for bail to be granted accordingly. The appeal is disposed of pursuant to the court's order.
O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
Pursuant to our order dated 16.06.2025, appellant has filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent – State of Maharashtra.
From a perusal of the counter affidavit, we find that barring one accused named Ashraf, none of the other co-accused has absconded. In fact, most of the co-accused have been granted bail.
We are of the view that for the conduct of a co-accused, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of regular bail. In this connection, we may mention that the appellant was arrested on 10.01.2019 in connection with Crime Case No. 13 of 2019 Signature Not Verifiedregistered at Yerwada Police Station, Pune for the offences Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.06.27
17:03:10 IST Reason: punishable under Sections 3(25), 3(27) and 4(25) of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act .
During the Covid period, he was granted bail for about two years, whereafter, he had surrendered to the jail authorities. Even then, as of now, appellant has undergone actual incarceration of more than 05 years. We have also been informed that charges have not yet been framed, not to speak of the trial commencing. In such circumstances, we are of the view that a case for grant of bail has been made out by the appellant.
Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be produced before the concerned trial court within a maximum period of 07 days from today, whereafter, the trail court shall grant bail to the appellant on such terms and conditions, as may be deemed appropriate by the trial court.
In view of above, the appeal is disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
………........................J.
[ UJJAL BHUYAN ]
.......…………..............J.
[ K. VINOD CHANDRAN ]
New Delhi;
JUNE 26, 2025.
ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4935/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-02-2025 in BA No. 2283/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay]
ROHIT P. KOLI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
IA No. 82299/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 82300/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 26-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN [PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH]
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Adv.
Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
