2026:BHC-AUG:37594 945ba1423-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 945 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1423 OF 2026 Sai Sunil Kumawat VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ... Mr. Malpani Mohit Rajendra, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 18th August, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. After hearing the learned Advocate for the applicant for some time and after perusing the investigating papers annexed to the application with the assistance, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it has been noticed that the present is the case of assault in which the death of 18 years old boy has been caused. There are eye witnesses to the incident who attribute the infliction of knife on the chest of the deceased to the present applicant. A specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and there has been a recovery of the knife at the instance of the present applicant. 2. Upon showing my disinclination to allow the application, the learned Advocate for the applicant, on instructions seeks leave to withdraw the application with a request to direct the trial court to complete the trial within a period of one year from tody. He further prays that in case, the trial is not substantially proceeded then liberty 1 of 2 945ba1423-26 be granted to the applicant to file fresh bail application before the trial court.

3. Taking into consideration that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, the charge has already been framed, and the list of witnesses has also been furnished before the Trial Court, I find no impediment to the Trial Court proceeding with the trial. In fact, in the order refusing bail to the present applicant, the trial court itself, in n para 24 of the order, mentions that “charge has been framed and evidence of the prosecution witnesses yet to be recorded. The learned APP submits that they will proceed with the trial without any further delay.” Thus, the trial court should make all its endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today. In case, the trial is not sufficiently progressed within this one year, then the applicant is at liberty to revise his prayer for grant of regular bail before the learned trial court. 4. With the foresaid observations, the present application is disposed of as withdrawn. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 2 of 2

2026:BHC-AUG:37594 945ba1423-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 945 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1423 OF 2026 Sai Sunil Kumawat VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ... Mr. Malpani Mohit Rajendra, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 18th August, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. After hearing the learned Advocate for the applicant for some time and after perusing the investigating papers annexed to the application with the assistance, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it has been noticed that the present is the case of assault in which the death of 18 years old boy has been caused. There are eye witnesses to the incident who attribute the infliction of knife on the chest of the deceased to the present applicant. A specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and there has been a recovery of the knife at the instance of the present applicant. 2. Upon showing my disinclination to allow the application, the learned Advocate for the applicant, on instructions seeks leave to withdraw the application with a request to direct the trial court to complete the trial within a period of one year from tody. He further prays that in case, the trial is not substantially proceeded then liberty 1 of 2 945ba1423-26 be granted to the applicant to file fresh bail application before the trial court.

3. Taking into consideration that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, the charge has already been framed, and the list of witnesses has also been furnished before the Trial Court, I find no impediment to the Trial Court proceeding with the trial. In fact, in the order refusing bail to the present applicant, the trial court itself, in n para 24 of the order, mentions that “charge has been framed and evidence of the prosecution witnesses yet to be recorded. The learned APP submits that they will proceed with the trial without any further delay.” Thus, the trial court should make all its endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today. In case, the trial is not sufficiently progressed within this one year, then the applicant is at liberty to revise his prayer for grant of regular bail before the learned trial court. 4. With the foresaid observations, the present application is disposed of as withdrawn. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 2 of 2