Order 230926ba1113.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 1113 OF 2026. Ashwin @ Bunty Rajesh Sallamwar -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri A.T. Purohit, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri H.D. Marathe, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026. Heard. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.804/2024 registered with Chandrapur City Police Station, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 103[1] and 3[5] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Charge sheet came to be filed and Sections 189[1], 189[2], 189[4] of the BNS and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act came to be added. 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:12675 Order 230926ba1113.26 2 Harish Arewar, alleging that on 15.10.2024 at about 9 p.m. he received an information that accused persons, including the applicant are assaulting his brother with knife and sticks. On reaching the spot, accused persons fled and brother of informant Aryan was lying in a pool of blood and his sister was crying near him. The injured was then taken to the hospital, but, was declared dead. Hence, the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant is pressing the ground of delay in trial for releasing the applicant on bail. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested on 16.10.2024, however, till date not a single witness has been examined. Almost two years are over from arrest, the right of speedy trial guaranteed to the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated, as the prosecution has not commenced the evidence. Inviting attention to the roznama placed on record, it is submitted that till date more than 72-74 dates are over before the trial Court, however, on most of the dates, the applicant was not produced from jail. It is submitted that the applicant is not at fault and therefore, he deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. vehemently Rgd. Order 230926ba1113.26 3 opposed the application by submitting charges are framed now and prosecution is ready to conclude the trial within a stipulated period. He submits that the crime committed by the applicant is serious in nature, and in such circumstances, merely on the ground of delay in trial, the applicant would not be entitled for bail. 6. I have considered submissions of both sides and gone through the material placed on record. In the present case there are total 6 accused persons. It appears that all the accused persons, except the applicant, are released on bail. This Court has called the status report from the trial Court, and accordingly the same is received. Perusal of the said report shows that most of the time was consumed in deciding the bail applications. The status report does not reflect that charges are framed, however, it is informed that recently on 21.09.2026, charges are framed. Copy of roznama of said date is placed on record by the learned A.P.P. So far as the delay is concerned, it appears that the applicant was arrested on 16.10.2024, now almost two years are over, however, except for framing of the charge there is no progress in the trial. Even those are framed recently on Rgd. Order 230926ba1113.26 4 21.09.2026, i.e. after calling the status report from the trial Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains the applicant is behind bars since 16.10.2024, in such circumstances, it will be useful to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh .vrs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813; has in paragraph 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 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 .vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 8 SCC 293; it has been held in paragraph 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 Rgd. Order 230926ba1113.26 5 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 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 judgment in case of Anoop Singh .vrs. U.T. of J & K (SLP (Cri) No.1398/2026 ) vide order dated 03.02.2026, the Supreme Court 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, Rgd. Order 230926ba1113.26 6 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in case of Arvind Dham .vrs. Directorate of Enforcement – (2026 SCC Online SC 30), in paragraph no.18 has held as under : “18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail.” 9. From the above observations of the Supreme Court it is crystal clear it is immaterial what offence is committed by the applicant if there is a long incarceration of the accused but, there is no progress in the trial, it amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. From the record, it Rgd. Order 230926ba1113.26 7 appears that the applicant is not at fault for the delay in trial, and in such circumstances, he can be released on bail only on the ground of delay in trial, since speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, considering the above exposition of law and since the applicant is behind bars from 16.10.2024, I am inclined to grant him bail. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant /accused Ashwin @ Bunty Rajesh Sallamwar be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.804/2024 registered with Chandrapur City Police Station, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 103[1], 3[5], 189[1], 189[2] and 189[4] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/-, with two sureties in the like amount. (iii) The accused shall not enter within the territorial jurisdiction where the informant is residing, till the completion of the trial. Rgd. Order 230926ba1113.26 8 (iv) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (v) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change the place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (vi) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial on one date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. (vii) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial. (viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGE. Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 24/09/2026 16:38:02