Order 230926ba1181.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 1181 OF 2026. Vinod Ramchandra Lakhade. -VERSUS- 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 R.M. Daga, 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.279/2024 registered with Chikhali Police Station, District Buldhana, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet came to be filed and Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, were added. 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Laxmi Wagh, alleging that on 09.04.2024 at 10 p.m. her neighbour informed her that her relative Nandoi (sister-in-law’s Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:12679 Order 230926ba1181.26 2 husband) has been assaulted on head, and he has been taken to government hospital for treatment. When she reached the hospital, she found that the injured was lying unconscious on the stretcher, due to injury and face was swollen. Hence, the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant is seeking bail on the ground of delay in trial. Apart from that, he has not raised any other ground. It is submitted that the fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed to the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. The applicant came to be arrested on 10.04.2024, however, till date not a single witness has been examined. Charges were framed on 09.01.2025, however, even after framing of the charge, for almost 1 years and 8 months the prosecution is yet to commence the trial. He invited my attention to the roznama placed on record, wherein after framing of the charge, the matter was listed for leading evidence, and production of muddemal, however, no muddemal was produced even thereafter for almost 30 dates. In such circumstances, if the roznama is taken as it is, no fault can be attributed to the applicant. He further submits that more than 2 years and 6 months are over, the prosecution has failed to lead evidence. In Rgd. Order 230926ba1181.26 3 the charge sheet, 29 witnesses have been named for examination, and therefore, the trial will take time to conclude. He therefore, prayed for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application by contending that, the offence committed by the applicant is serious one. He submits that merely on the ground of delay in trial, the applicant cannot be released on bail. He further submits that it cannot be said that the prosecution is at fault, so far as the delay is concerned, therefore, the application needs to be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the material placed on record. It appears that the applicant was arrested on 10.04.2024, and since then he is languishing in jail. It further appears that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Application seeking grant of bail, however, vide order dated 01.12.2025, this Court was not inclined to grant bail on merits, but, granted liberty to the applicant to approach the trial Court if the trial is not commenced within a period of 6 months. He submits that accordingly the applicant filed an application before the trial Rgd. Order 230926ba1181.26 4 Court, however, the same came to be rejected, therefore, he is before this Court once again. It appears that the charges were framed on 09.01.2025, however, even after framing of the charge, when the matter was listed for evidence, the same was adjourned for almost 30 dates for muddemal, which was not produce and it is recently produced. After going through the entire roznama, it is noticed that most of the time the applicant was not produced from jail and on certain dates the Court was also vacant. Thus, for one or the other reason the case was adjourned, however, from the roznama, I do not find that the applicant is at fault. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the fundamental right guaranteed to the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated, and therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of bail. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused – Vinod Ramchandra Lakhade, be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.279/2024 registered with Chikhali Police Station, District Buldhana, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with Rgd. Order 230926ba1181.26 5 two solvent sureties in the like amount; (iii) The accused shall not not enter within the territorial jurisdiction where the informant is residing, till the completion of the trial. (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) On commencement of the trial, 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 16:39:45