1 31-Cr.BA-1119-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 1119 OF 2026 Shaikh Riyaz Shaikh Mahemood -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra and Another __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. M.V. Rai, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. H.D. Marathe, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant No.1/State. Ms. R.M. Khapekar, Advocate (appointed) for the Non- applicant No.2. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026. Heard. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.395/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered with Police Station Pusad (Rural), District Yavatmal. 3. The First Information Report (“FIR”) was registered on 25/05/2024 at Pusad Rural Police Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:12918 2 31-Cr.BA-1119-2026 Station on the basis of the oral report lodged by the informant, i.e., the father of the victim. The informant stated that his 15-year-old minor daughter was found to be pregnant during a medical examination conducted on 24/05/2024. The victim disclosed that the present applicant had established physical relations with her on multiple occasions on the false promise of marriage, commencing from March 2024. Based on these allegations, the FIR came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in custody since 25/05/2024. The applicant seeks to be released on regular bail on the ground of delay in trial. He submits that his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated, as more than two years and four months have elapsed since his arrest. Though the charge was framed on 11/09/2025, not a single witness has been examined till date. He further submits that the Court has remained vacant since June 2026. Under such circumstances, he submits that the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the victim vehemently opposed the application and submit that there is no Piyush Mahajan 3 31-Cr.BA-1119-2026 substantial delay in the trial. They submit that it is the applicant who has contributed to the delay in the trial, as he engaged his counsel only on 27/03/2026. They further submit that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as the applicant is alleged to have committed sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. Considering the seriousness of the offence, they submit that the applicant should not be released on bail. Under such circumstances, they pray for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. This Court called for a status report from the Trial Court in order to ascertain the status of the trial, and accordingly, the same has been received. Perusal of the status report indicates that the case is still pending and that, till date, not a single witness has been examined. Perusal of the order passed by the In- charge Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Pusad, indicates that the Court has remained vacant since June 2026. It further appears that the charge was framed on 11/09/2025, the muddemal was received on 18/12/2025, and the matter has been fixed for evidence since 19/12/2025. However, the prosecution has not examined a single witness, while the Court has remained vacant since June 2026. It is a matter of fact that the applicant has been in Piyush Mahajan 4 31-Cr.BA-1119-2026 custody since 25/05/2024. Under such circumstances, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813, wherein, in paragraph 17, it has been 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 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-under trial 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 Piyush Mahajan 5 31-Cr.BA-1119-2026 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 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.” Considering the observations of the Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that no person can be incarcerated indefinitely. In fact, in the present case, as was observed above, the applicant is in jail Piyush Mahajan 6 31-Cr.BA-1119-2026 since 25/05/2024, yet, except for the framing of charges, there is no progress in the trial. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the applicant cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period. It is further to be noted that 17 witnesses are cited, and therefore, it will definitely take some time, and one does not know when the trial will conclude. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Application is allowed; (ii) The applicant/accused (Shaikh Riyaz Shaikh Mohemood) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.395/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered with Police Station Pusad (Rural), District Yavatmal, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount; Piyush Mahajan 7 31-Cr.BA-1119-2026 (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 Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency; (v) Once the trial commences, the accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for one single date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail; (vi) Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as per rules; (vii) The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same; (viii) Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan Signed by: Piyush Ramesh Mahajan Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2026 20:09:41