Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, one of six accused in Sessions Case No. 142 of 2018 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, faced trial for offences under Sections 307, 326, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The case arose from Crime No. 336 of 2017 registered at Vartak Nagar Police Station. During trial, the prosecution examined witnesses, and the charge-sheet did not include two individuals, Akash Sahu and Anand Fadtare, who were shown as not traceable. Charges framed on 25 February 2025 mentioned them as absconding accused. In the midst of trial, the petitioner filed an application requesting that accused Anand Fadtare be tried along with this case under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relying on information that Anand Fadtare was granted bail by the Sessions Court on 13 April 2018, suggesting he was arrested and might have a charge-sheet filed against him. The trial court rejected the application on 31 July 2025, imposed a cost of ₹3000, and observed that his liberty would be curtailed if the cost was not paid. The petitioner challenged this order by Criminal Writ Petition No. 4468 of 2025. The Bombay High Court held that the trial court ought to have directed the prosecution to verify whether a charge-sheet was filed against Anand Fadtare before rejecting the application. The High Court found the imposition of cost unjustified and the threat to curtail bail for non-payment of cost harsh and beyond jurisdiction, as cancellation of bail requires distinct considerations and prior hearing. The High Court referred to Section 355 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, highlighting the legislative intent to try co-accused together and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and mentioned Section 356 of the BNSS concerning trials of absconding persons without applying it. The High Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and directed the trial court to issue directions to the prosecution to ascertain whether a charge-sheet had been filed against wanted accused Anand Fadtare, with liberty to also seek information about Akash Sahu. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Joint Trial of Absconding Accused - Trial Court Must Verify Factual Aspects Before Rejection - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 355; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 223 - In the ongoing sessions trial, petitioner accused sought joint trial of wanted accused Anand Fadtare; the trial court summarily rejected the application without calling for a verification report from the prosecution. Held that the trial court was required to ascertain whether a charge-sheet had been filed against the wanted accused before deciding the application, and the matter was remanded for such verification and fresh consideration (Paras 4-7, 10). B) Criminal Procedure - Costs - Imposition of Costs in Criminal Trial - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Not mentioned - The trial court imposed a cost of ₹3000 on the petitioner while rejecting the application, which the High Court found unjustified in the circumstances. Held that the imposition of costs was unwarranted and resulted from haste in rejecting the application without issuing directions to the prosecution (Paras 5-6). C) Criminal Law - Bail Cancellation - Considerations for Cancellation Distinct from Grant - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Not mentioned - The trial court observed that the petitioner's liberty would be curtailed if the cost was not paid, creating apprehension and exceeding its jurisdiction. Held that cancellation of bail requires distinct considerations and that an accused must be heard before any such action; threat to curtail liberty for non-payment of cost was overly harsh and impermissible (Paras 5-6). D) Criminal Procedure - Legislative Intent - Joint Trial and Avoidance of Delay - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 355, 356 - The court examined Sections 355 and 356 BNSS to highlight the legislative intent of trying co-accused together and preventing delay through absconder evidence provisions. Held that the trial court disregarded this legislative intent by rejecting the application summarily; however, Section 356 was not applied in the present case (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 223 Cr.P.C. / Section 355 BNSS without directing verification of chargesheet against wanted accused Anand Fadtare, imposing cost of ₹3000 and threatening cancellation of bail
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 31 July 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 142 of 2018 was set aside. The matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. The trial court was directed to issue directions to the prosecution to ascertain whether a charge-sheet had been filed against wanted accused Anand Fadtare, and after getting the report, to decide the application on merits. The trial court was also given liberty to seek information from the police about filing of a charge-sheet against wanted accused Akash Sahu. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Trial court must verify factual aspects before rejecting application for joint trial of co-accused
- imposition of cost without justification is improper
- cancellation of bail requires different considerations and prior hearing
- threat to curtail liberty for non-payment of cost exceeds jurisdiction
- legislative intent of Section 355 BNSS to avoid multiplicity and delay must be respected
- Section 356 BNSS not applied in present case
