1 33-Cr.BA-1208-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 1208 OF 2026 Sachin S/o Parsram Fendarkar -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. Samyak Chahande, Advocate a/w. Mr. Kanak. Y. Mandpe, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. T.H. Udeshi, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 05, 2026. Heard. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.18/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered with Police Station Kuhi, District Nagpur. 3. The prosecution case, as stated in the First Information Report (F.I.R.), is that the informant, Satish Deulkar, was working as a driver of deceased Vinod Bondre. It is alleged that on 21.01.2024, while the informant, the deceased and the present applicant Sachin Fendarkar along with Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:13155 2 33-Cr.BA-1208-2026 two other persons were travelling in a vehicle towards Pachgaon, the applicant allegedly caught hold of the deceased, while the other persons assaulted him with knives. The deceased sustained multiple injuries and was subsequently declared dead at the hospital. Based on these allegations, the First Information Report came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant raises the ground of “delay in trial” to release of the applicant on bail. He submits that the applicant was arrested on 22/01/2024 and, till today, the trial has not concluded, in spite of the fact that more than 2 years and 9 months are over. Though 10 witnesses have been examined, however, considering the long incarceration, there is less possibility that the trial would be concluded in the near future, therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the application and submits that already 10 witnesses have been examined and, within 3 months, the prosecution will conclude its evidence. She further submits that when the prosecution is ready to conclude the trial, and the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. Piyush Mahajan 3 33-Cr.BA-1208-2026 6. Upon consideration of the submissions, this Court called for the status report from the trial Court, and accordingly it is received. From the status report, it appears that the charge-sheet came to be filed on 18/04/2024 and the charges were framed against the applicant on 20/08/2024. The case was adjourned from time to time for recording of evidence and, in the meanwhile, the case was also transferred from one Court to another. It further appears that 9 witnesses were examined till the status report is received. It further appears that the learned A.P.P. who is conducting the trial made a statement across the Bar that anyhow matter would be concluded by the end of October, 2026, as only 4 - 5 witnesses are remaining to be examined. No doubt, so far as the status report is concerned, a statement was made by the learned A.P.P. conducting the trial that the trial would be concluded by the end of October, 2026, as only 4-5 witnesses are remained to be examined. However, considering the fact that the applicant is behind bars from 2 years and 09 months, and further the delay, as reflected from the status report, is not attributable to the applicant, under such circumstances, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Piyush Mahajan 4 33-Cr.BA-1208-2026 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 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 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 Piyush Mahajan 5 33-Cr.BA-1208-2026 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.” From the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the same is violated, the accused would be entitled for bail. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant was arrested on 22/01/2024, and more than 2 years and Piyush Mahajan 6 33-Cr.BA-1208-2026 9 months are over, however, the prosecution was not able to conclude the trial till date. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, by imposing stringent conditions, the applicant can be released on bail. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Application is allowed; (ii) The applicant/accused (Sachin S/o Parsram Fendarkar) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.18/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered with Police Station Kuhi, District Nagpur, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount; (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 Piyush Mahajan 7 33-Cr.BA-1208-2026 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) The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same; (vii) 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: 05/10/2026 18:08:12