1 47 BA 1278.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1278/2026 (Rashid Khan S/o Saheb Khan Pathan 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. D. Chande, Advocate for applicant. Ms. T. H. Udeshi. APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 07/10/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicants is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.154/2022 registered with Police Station Sakkardara, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 109, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections, 4, 25 of the Arms Act, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 21/03/2022, at about 8.30 to 8.45 p.m., in front of the gate of the PF Office, Shitlamata Mandir Road, one Aarif Sheikh, a friend of the informant’s brother, came along with two persons to the house of the informant, Shahabaj Anwar Pathan, and informed him that the accused persons, namely, Rashid Khan and his companion, had assaulted his brother, Wasim Anwar Pathan, who was admitted to the 2 47 BA 1278.26.odt Medical Hospital. Based on these allegations, the First Information Report came to be registered on 22/03/2022. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been behind bars for the last 4 years and 7 months, and the trial has not yet been concluded. Therefore, he raises the ground of delay in trial for seeking the applicant’s release on bail. He submits that the applicant’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated. He further submits that the witnesses have been examined after considerable intervals, with a gap of 2 to 3 months between their examination. Under such circumstances, he submits that there is little possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. He submits that 41 witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet, and it is uncertain when the trial will conclude. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP invited my attention to the observations of the Trial Court, wherein it is stated that 13 witnesses have already been examined. Even thereafter, as per the order passed by the Trial Court, one more witness has been examined, meaning thereby 3 47 BA 1278.26.odt that a total of 14 witnesses have already been examined. Hardly two months would be required for the further examination of 3 to 4 witnesses, upon which the prosecution would conclude its evidence. Considering this fact, the learned APP submits that, though the applicant has been behind bars for more than 4 years and 7 months, the said period, by itself, is not sufficient to release the applicant on bail, since the prosecution is ready to conclude the trial within two months. Therefore, she prays for rejection of the application. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions and after going through the record, it appears that the applicant was arrested on 22/03/2022. The charge-sheet has been filed and the charges were framed on 07/02/2023. It appears that though the charges were framed in the month of February 2023, the prosecution has not been able to conclude the trial till today. Though it is observed that there are a total of 41 witnesses, it can be observed from the order of the Trial Court that 13 witnesses have already been examined and thereafter, one more witness was examined, making a total of 14 witnesses examined till today. However, one does not know when the prosecution will be able to examine the other witnesses and complete 4 47 BA 1278.26.odt the trial. Under such circumstances, it would be useful to refer to the following judgments of the Supreme Court:- 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 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 5 47 BA 1278.26.odt 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 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 6 47 BA 1278.26.odt 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.” 7. From the above exposition of law, it would be gathered that it is immaterial as to what offence has been committed by the applicant. However, it is to be noted that the applicant has been behind bars for more than 4 years and 7 months. It is further to be noted that, though 14 witnesses have been examined till today, one does not know when the trial will conclude. Though the learned APP assures this Court that the trial would be concluded within 2 months, it is very difficult to accept the said statement considering the gap between the examination of the witnesses. Therefore, the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Rashid Khan S/o Saheb Khan Pathan be released on bail in connection with Crime No.154/2022 registered with Police Station Sakkardara, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 109, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections, 4, 25 of the Arms Act, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act 7 47 BA 1278.26.odt on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- 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 before the Trial Court or before this Court. 8. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 9. 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.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 17:34:01