The Supreme Court today rejected a bail petition following a fourth request for adjournment.

The Supreme Court rejected Nilesh Dhyaneshwar Desale's bail plea challenging the Bombay High Court's February 13 order denying him bail. The dismissal was due to non-prosecution, as the Court observed that repeated adjournments had been sought in the matter, with the counsel for the petitioner requesting an adjournment for the fourth time.

The petitioner, alleged to be a contract killer, is accused of conspiring to eliminate an individual named Sachin and hiring contract killers to carry out the murder. Before the High Court, the State strongly opposed the bail application, citing the petitioner's involvement in nine prior criminal cases.

Before the High Court, Desale had filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with offences under Sections 302 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

Taking into account these allegations, the High Court noted that there was prima facie evidence indicating the petitioner’s involvement in a serious offence. It also observed that the petitioner had previously misused bail granted in other cases, and there remained a likelihood of him committing similar crimes in the future.

Consequently, Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. Challenging this order, a plea was filed before the Supreme Court. However, the matter, scheduled for hearings on July 31, September 10, and October 15, was adjourned on all three occasions at the request of the petitioner's counsel.

Today, when the petitioner’s counsel sought yet another adjournment, a bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma strongly opposed the request.

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

He further remarked that over 250 cases are filed in the Supreme Court every day, with people arriving at 8 am and working until 9 pm, while some advocates continuously seek adjournments.

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