Order 011026ba1168.26.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 1168 OF 2026. Ankush Tukaram Bhowate -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms S.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri A.B. Badar, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant /State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2026. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.69/2025 registered with Pardi Police Station, Nagpur City, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 126[2], 115[2], 351[3], 3[5] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Charge sheet came to be filed and Sections 103[1] and 61[2] of the BNS came to be added. Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:13281 Order 011026ba1168.26.odt 2 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Manthan Bhandekar alleging that on 11.02.2025 his father went on moped to saloon for shaving, and returned injured with injury on his head. On enquiry, the injured stated that three unknown persons accosted him and thereafter assaulted him, therefore, the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant had raised the ground of delay in trial for releasing the applicant on regular bail. She submitted that the applicant came to be arrested on 16.02.2025, and since then he is in jail. Though charges are framed, but the trial has not commenced, thereby, the fundamental right guaranteed to the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated, and therefore, he be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. opposed the application by inviting my attention to the observations of the trial Court, by which the application of applicant came to be rejected. It is stated therein that the prosecution is ready to conduct the trial on day to day basis, however, the co-accused persons have filed the bail applications one after another, time was taken by the Court for deciding the same. He therefore, Rgd. Order 011026ba1168.26.odt 3 prayed for rejection of the application. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. The applicant was arrested on 16.02.2025 and charges were framed on 30.06.2026, and now the matter is posted for compliance. It is further to be noted that this Court vide order dated 12.02.2026 had granted liberty to the applicant to approach the trial Court after 6 months. Accordingly, the applicant approached the Trial Court which rejected the application and observed that as the bail applications were being filed one after another by the accused person, and the Advocates appearing for the accused persons sought time for filing case laws in support of their case, considerable time of the court went into deciding the same. 7. From perusal of the roznama, it is noted that the applicant had filed his vakalatnama on 14.11.2025 and thereafter filed an application for bail, which came to be decided on 08.12.2025. Further perusal also reveals that even the Counsel for the accused persons were not present on some of the dates. After expiry of period of 6 months in view the order of this Court granting liberty to approach after said period, Vakalatnama and bail application was filed by one of the co- Rgd. Order 011026ba1168.26.odt 4 accused on 30.03.2026 and then 02.05.2026, an additional affidavit was filed by him. Again on 05.05.2026, personal exemption application and additional affidavit is filed by other accused person. Even the Counsel for accused persons have taken two dates for filing the case laws. Finally, charge came to be framed on 30.06.2026, however even after that applications on some or other grounds were filed by the accused persons. The applicant also has filed the bail application, which came to be decided on 25.08.2026. It is to be noted that unless all the accused persons co-operates with the trial Court, it is very difficult for the Trial Court to conduct the trial. In my opinion, there is no long incarceration which would entail release of the applicant on regular bail. Considering these facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Criminal Application is therefore, rejected. However, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 06/10/2026 17:45:51