Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Plea After Adjournment Was Sought For 4th Time

The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition seeking bail after adjournment was sought on the fourth occasion.

The Court dismissed a bail plea filed by Nilesh Dhyaneshwar Desale against the order of the February 13 order of the Bombay High Court denying him bail. The plea was dismissed for non-prosecution after the Court noted that constant adjournments have been sought in this case and this was the fourth time, the counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment.

It is alleged that the petitioner, a contract killer, hatched a conspiracy in order to eliminate one Sachin and also gave a contract to contract killers to murder him. Before the High Court, the State had vehemently opposed the bail and submitted that there are 9 criminal antecedents against the present petitioner.

As per the case before the High Court, Desale had filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B read with 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

Considering all these allegations, the High Court observed that there is prima facie evidence that the present petitioner committed a serious offence, had early misused his liberty when bail was granted to him in other cases, and the possibility of him committing a similar nature of crimes cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh held that the present petitioner is not entitled to bail. Against this order, a plea was filed before the Supreme Court. It was up for hearing on July 31, September 10, and October 15. But the counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on all three dates.

Today, when the Counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment again, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma strongly objected to it.

Justice Sharma orally remarked: "We are not able to cope up [with backlogs] because of this[constant adjournment sought]. Five/six adjournments."

He added that more than 250 filling of cases take place in the Supreme Court every day and people who come at 8 am work till 9 pm and then, there are advocates who keep on seeking adjournment.

Therefore, the Court stated that it would not hear the matter and passed an order in this regard: "Here, three times the adjournment was sought. Dismissed."

Case Details: NILESH DNYANESHWAR DESALE v THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., Diary No. 22040-2024