1 43. BA 1269 of 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.1269 OF 2026 DEVAN S/O BHEDAN PURWALE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS KANHAN, DIST. NAGPUR Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for Non-Applicant-State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATED : 05th OCTOBER 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.465 of 2023, dated 20.07.2023, registered with Police Station Kanhan, Dist. Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.07.2023, at about 09.00 a.m., the nephew of the informant Aarush came home crying and told him that the applicant and other 2026:BHC-NAG:13273 2 43. BA 1269 of 2026.odt co-accused had abused him. Therefore, the informant and his brother Jayaraj went to ask the applicant and other co-accused the reason for abusing Aarush. At that time, accused persons quarreled with them, during which co-accused assaulted the informant with a blade. When the informant’s brother intervened other co-accused, they held him and assaulted him with fists and kick blows and the applicant stabbed him on the stomach with a sharp knife, due to which, he succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the FIR. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant raised ground of delay in trial for releasing the applicant on bail. He submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. The fundamental right of the applicant of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated since the applicant was arrested on 20.07.2023 and till today, not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. He submits that when the applicant filed an application before the trial court for grant of bail on the ground of delay, the trial court put the entire blame on the applicant for the delay. He submits that the charges were framed after more than two years from his arrest i.e. on 03.10.2025. Under such circumstances, since the applicant is behind bars for more than three years, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 3 43. BA 1269 of 2026.odt 5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that there is direct material against the applicant. He further submits that there are eye witnesses to the incident. The applicant has committed serious offence of murder and it is necessary to see the gravity and the seriousness of the offence. Merely on the basis of delay in trial, the applicant cannot be released on bail. He submits that the trial court has rightly observed that it is the applicant who has not filed say to the application at Exhibit 62, for near about four months. Therefore, according to learned APP, at the most, the trial court could be directed to dispose of the matter within stipulated period and therefore, prays for rejection of the application. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, apparently, it appears that the applicant was arrested on 20.07.2023. It is almost after two years that the charges were framed by the trial court i.e. on 03.10.2025. It further appears that though the charges were framed, however, till today, only issuance of summons to the witnesses has been done and no witness has been examined, though more than one year has lapsed. It is to be noted that the delay in trial violates the fundamental right guaranteed to the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4 43. BA 1269 of 2026.odt 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, [(2024) 9 SCC 813] has held in para No.17 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.” 8. Further, in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2024) 8 SCC 293], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para No.42 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 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.” 9. Even in the recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anoop Singh Vs. U.T. of J and K (SLP (Cri) No. 1398/2026) vide order dated 03/02/2026 , has held in para No.8 as under : 5 43. BA 1269 of 2026.odt “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.” 10. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases that it is immaterial though what offence has been committed by the applicant when there is a consideration on the ground of delay in trial. Therefore, as the applicant was arrested on 20.07.2023 and the charges were framed almost after two years i.e. on 03.10.2025, however, thereafter, no witness has been examined by the prosecution, whereas it intends to examine thirty witnesses. Under such circumstances, the trial will take time to conclude and therefore, the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. A case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER i) The Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. ii) The applicant/accused viz. Devan S/o. Bhedan Purwale, be released on bail in connection with Crime No.465 of 2023, dated 20.07.2023, registered with Police Station 6 43. BA 1269 of 2026.odt Kanhan, Dist. Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two 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, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer. v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial on even a single date or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. vi) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 11. The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations. (M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) asd