1 45.ba.1214.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1214 OF 2026 Sanjy s/o Munna Lokhande ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms F.N. Haidari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.M. Kadukar, APP for the non-applicant/State. Ms Khushi R. Kadu, Advocate for non-applicant no.2 (appointed). CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 24.09.2026. Heard. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.6 of 2022 registered with Shirajgaon Kasba Police Station, Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(d), 363, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 and 16 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, mainly on the ground of delay in trial. 3. The FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim alleging that the applicant along with his friend took the victim to nearby agricultural field where he told the victim that he intends to marry her and committed rape on her and therefore, the report. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is inordinate delay in trial. The FIR was registered on 07.01.2022 whereas the charge-sheet was filed on 03.03.2022. Further the charges were framed on 2026:BHC-NAG:12743 2 45.ba.1214.2026 31.01.2023, however thereafter there is no progress in the trial and till today only six witnesses had been examined. She submits that the applicant is not at fault, therefore, considering the fact that the fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is grossly violated, he prayed to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP and learned Counsel appearing for the victim vehemently opposed the application by submitting that though the applicant is in jail since 07.01.2022 however there is no progress in the trial and till today six witnesses are examined and therefore, it is not safe to release the applicant on bail. They further submit that one another similar type of offence was registered against the applicant when the applicant was juvenile and therefore, according to them, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail on the ground of delay in trial. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of delay in trial in catena of judgments stating that the accused cannot be put behind the bars for indefinite period, if the trial has not progressed. 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 fundamental right of an accused to have a 3 45.ba.1214.2026 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.” 7. 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 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.” 8. Even in the recent judgment in case of Anoop Singh .vs. 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 4 45.ba.1214.2026 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.” 9. In view of the above exposition of law and considering the fact that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant is behind bars since from 4 years and 9 months and there is delay in trial, which grossly violated the applicant’s fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence the following order : (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicant Sanjay s/o Munna Lokhande in connection with Crime No.6 of 2022 registered with Shirajgaon Kasba Police Station, Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(d), 363, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 and 16 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall 5 45.ba.1214.2026 not tamper with the evidence. (d) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (e) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 10. The observations are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same . 11. All Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. 12. Fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per rules. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 10:47:59