1 32 BA 1163.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1163/2026 (Nilesh S/o. Dyaneshwar Kedar Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. D. Yerawar, Advocate applicant. Mr. H. D. Marathe, APP for non-applicant. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 21/09/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 420/2019 registered with Police Station Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 323, 386, 504, 506, 75 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”). 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant is a businessman and he runs a grain mill. On 12/03/2003, the informant had purchased agricultural land bearing Kh. No 454/1 at Mouza Wadoda, Tal. Kamptee, District Nagpur from one Shri. Abhimanyu Chawla and Nandkumar Chandanani for Rs.4,41,000/- by 2 32 BA 1163.26 a registered sale deed and the land came was registered in the name of informant in the revenue record entries. With a purpose to build a godown on the said plot, the informant obtained fresh 7/12 extract of the said land wherein it was revealed to him that the said land was sold to one Nitesh Purushottam Mane (Accused no.4) vide a sale deed dated 07/12/2015 and upon making an inquiry, he found that the photograph as well as the signature on the said sale deed was fabricated and did not belong to informant. Upon making an inquiry with one of the witnesses to the sale deed namely Azhar Shamshad Khan, the informant came to know that the said purchaser Nitesh mane is a close relative of the accused no. 1 and that the applicant is also the nephew of the accused no.1. It is alleged that the accused persons have accumulated various properties in the Nagpur city. It is further alleged that the accused persons impersonated the informant and forged the documents, thereby executing the sale deed. Based on this the first information report was registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks bail only on the ground of delay in trial. He submits that the applicant came to be arrested on 27/08/2020. Though 10 3 32 BA 1163.26 witnesses have been examined, it is submitted that the said witnesses have been examined as per the convenience of the prosecution, thereby causing delay in the trial. The applicant was not produced from the Jail on more than 100 times, whereas, on 24 occasions, the Special Public Prosecutor was not present. When summons were issued to the higher officials of the investigating agency, they sought adjournments on several occasions and, till today they were not present before the Trial Court to depose. The applicant is behind the bars for more than 6 years. Therefore, the applicant is at no fault and under such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP invited my attention to the order of the Trial Court, wherein according to APP, it is the applicant who has delayed the trial, he has taken long time to cross-examine the witnesses. No fault can be attributed to the prosecution for delay. The provisions of MCOCA have also been invoked, as 10 offences have been registered against the applicant involving identical allegations. The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, however, the applicant has been in custody for more than six years, Therefore, 4 32 BA 1163.26 according to learned APP, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. The learned counsel for the applicant has also placed on record the copy of Rozanama. It appears from the record that for “N” number of times, the applicant was not produced before the Trial Court from the Jail. It further appears that for one or another reason the matter was adjourned from time to time. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that incomplete charge-sheet was supplied to the applicant and therefore, an application was preferred seeking complete copy of the charge-sheet. Though the Court directed the prosecution to provide all the relevant documents, the prosecution failed to provide the same and it has taken four to five months to provide those documents and even thereafter certain documents were not supplied to the accused person. Under such circumstances, it becomes difficult for the defence to effectively cross-examine the witnesses which has resulted in delay in trial. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that the entire blame for the delay has been attributed to the applicant and taking shelter of 5 32 BA 1163.26 Section 21(4) of the MCOCA, the application for bail has been rejected. Needless to mention that the applicant has been behind bars since more than six years. Whatever may be the reasons for delay, the fact remains that the applicant is in jail since six years. It is further to be noted that till today hardly 10 witnesses are examined. It further appears that the record is bulky and it is difficult to ascertain when the prosecution will complete its evidence. Under such circumstances, the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period as he has already undergone substantial period. I am of the considered opinion that considering his long incarceration, even a single day of his detention would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Under such circumstances, it would be useful to refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court which are as under:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh VS State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813; has in para no.17 held as under: “17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the 6 32 BA 1163.26 fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.” Further in case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal VS State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 8 SCC 293; it has been held in para no.42, by the Supreme Court as under : “42. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an Accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the Accused-undertrial Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the Rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But It would be very wrong to say that under a particular 7 32 BA 1163.26 statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.” Even in the recent judgment in case of Anoop Singh .vrs. U.T. of J and K (SLP (Cri) No.1398/2026 ) vide order dated 03/02/2026 has in paragraph no.8 held as under : “8. The report is extremely disturbing. The report highlights the sorry state of affairs at the end of the prosecuting agency. We are at pains to note that in last 7 years, the prosecution has been able to examine only 7 witnesses. Prosecution still intends to examine 17 more witnesses. We wonder who are these 17 witnesses who are yet to be examined and if not examined, what would be the adverse effect on the case of the prosecution. However, the most unfortunate part of the report of the Trial Court is that past 82 hearings, not a single witness has been examined.” 8. Considering the aforesaid exposition of law, needless to mention that the nature of alleged offence against the applicant is immaterial when his fundamental right is at stake. It further appears that, though the 8 32 BA 1163.26 applicant was involved in 10 other crimes, the allegation therein appears to be similar in nature. It further appears that even those trials have not reached there logical conclusion and are pending before the concerned Courts. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the applicant cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant by imposing stringent conditions. Needless to mention that in case of prolonged incarceration, the provisions of MCOCA cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Nilesh S/o Dyaneshwar Kedar be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 420/2019 registered with Police Station Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 323, 386, 504, 506, 75 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 4 of the MCOCA on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. 9 32 BA 1163.26 (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and also shall not tamper with the evidence. (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to the concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer. (v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial on even a single date or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 8. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 9. The observation of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/09/2026 18:03:18