New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed strong dissatisfaction over the fact that the petitioner in a criminal case has remained incarcerated for four years, despite the charge sheet having been filed as far back as 13 January 2022 and charges not having been framed till date.
Hearing SLP (Crl.) No. 12690 of 2025 arising from an order of the Bombay High Court in BA No. 176 of 2025, the Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra termed the situation “really shocking” and found the explanation offered by the State to be wholly unsatisfactory.
During the hearing, the Court was informed that the delay in framing charges was attributable to the non-appearance of certain co-accused who are out on bail. The Bench described the State’s submission as “even more shocking,” noting that the prosecution had not taken any steps—including filing an application for cancellation of bail of those co-accused—to ensure progress in the trial. The Court observed that such inaction raised a prima facie concern of collusion between the prosecution and the accused who were currently out on bail.
Taking serious note of the delay, the Bench directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to submit an explanation as to how such a situation had arisen and why the prosecution had not moved for cancellation of bail of the co-accused who were allegedly responsible for impeding the trial. The Court further directed the Trial Court to furnish a report explaining why it had not secured the presence of the bailed co-accused or taken steps to ensure progress of the trial, especially when the petitioner has remained in custody for an extended period. Both the explanation and the Trial Court’s report are required to be submitted within three weeks.
The Court has now fixed the matter for hearing on December 2.
Case Title: Shashi alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra
Appearance: The petitioner was represented by Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Ms. Smiti Verma, Mr. Samyak Jain, and Mr. Aditya Dutta, Advocates, and Mr. Pranay Shridhar Chitale, Advocate-on-Record; while the State was represented by Mr. Raman Yadav, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, and Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Advocates, and Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate-on-Record.
