1 37.ba.816.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 816 OF 2026 Sunil s/o Mohanlal Gandhi ..vs.. State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.M. Daga, Advocate for the applicant. Shri U.R. Phasate, APP for the State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 10.07.2026. Heard. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.63 of 2023 registered with Borakhedi Police Station, Buldana for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, mainly on the ground of delay in trial. 3. In sum and substance it is the case of the prosecution that during the period of 09.06.2021 till 09.06.2022 the applicant who was Manager in Buldhana Urban Co-operative Credit Society at Kothali had misused his position and committed fraud of Rs.1,37,59,518/-. Initially the FIR came to be registered against one Satish Rathi, however during investigation, name of the applicant was arraigned as an accused. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested on 06.02.2023 however the charges were framed after one year on 03.02.2024. Thereafter not a single witness has been examined as the 2 37.ba.816.2026 Court is lying vacant since 13.03.2025. Though Section 409 is invoked, however since more than three years, the applicant is behind bars and therefore, his right of speedy trial is grossly violated. 5. On the other hand the learned APP vehemently opposes the application by submitting that the prosecution has ready to conduct the trial immediately however it is not in the hands of the prosecution when the Court itself is vacant. He further submits that since the offence is economic offence and serious in nature, the application is prayed to be rejected. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. It appears from the status report, which was called from this Court that since 13.03.2025 the Court is lying vacant and in-charge Court is only giving dates. The applicant is behind bars for more than three years, under such circumstances, 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 bars for indefinite period, if the trial is 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 speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea 3 37.ba.816.2026 for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.” 8. 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 ball. But It would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, ball 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.” 9. 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 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 4 37.ba.816.2026 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.” 10. In view of the above exposition of law and considering the fact that investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed and the accused is in jail since 06.02.2023, the applicant’s fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Therefore, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence the following order : (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicant Sunil s/o Mohanlal Gandhi in connection with Crime No.63 of 2023 registered with Borakhedi Police Station, Buldana for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety 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 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 5 37.ba.816.2026 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. 11. All Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti