1 25-Cr.BA-1074-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 1074 OF 2026 Ashok Ramkesh Yadav -- VERSUS -- The State of Maharashtra and Another __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate a/w. Mr. Utkarsh M. Shende, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. P.C. Bawankule, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant No.1/State. Ms. Rohini Khapekar, Advocate (appointed) for the Non- applicant No.2. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026. Heard. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.188/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(j)(l)(n), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 6, 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered with Police Station Kamptee, District Nagpur. 3. As per the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the informant alleged that her minor daughter, aged about 15 years, was residing with the family. On being informed about certain discussions Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:13478 2 25-Cr.BA-1074-2026 in the locality, the informant and her husband enquired with their daughter, who allegedly disclosed that, for the past four months, three persons, namely, Raju, Moin and the present applicant, used to visit the house when she was alone and sexually assault her and threatened her not to disclose the alleged incident to anyone. Based on these allegations, the F.I.R. came to be registered on 16/03/2024. 4. The present application is filed by the applicant on the ground of “delay in trial”. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested on 16/03/2024 and, since then, he has been behind bars. Though the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, that by itself would not preclude this Court from granting bail on the ground of “delay in trial”. In fact, he submits that a speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused and, if the same is violated, the applicant would be entitled to bail. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail. He has also invited my attention to the order passed by this Court dated 24/03/2026 in Criminal Application [B.A.] No. 314/2026, wherein it is observed that the applicant is responsible for prolonging the trial, as he has been filing applications one after another. He submits that hardly three applications have been filed in the last Piyush Mahajan 3 25-Cr.BA-1074-2026 two and a half years and, therefore, the observation of the Trial Court is only an eye-wash. He, therefore, submits that the applicant would be entitled to bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing for the victim vehemently oppose the application and submit that the victim is a mentally retarded minor girl, aged about 15 years. They submit that the allegations are serious in nature and that the applicant has committed rape on the victim, who was not having sufficient understanding considering her mental status. They submit that the seriousness of the crime is also required to be considered when the applicant is seeking regular bail on the ground of “delay in trial”. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the charges have been framed, and that the prosecution is ready to conduct the trial in a speedy manner, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both sides, apparently, it appears that the applicant has been behind bars since 16/03/2024. This Court had called for the status report from the Trial Court, which states that the charges were framed on 24/08/2026. Apart from that, there is nothing mentioned in the status report. It is further to be Piyush Mahajan 4 25-Cr.BA-1074-2026 noted that, in the charge-sheet, a total of 25 witnesses have been cited and, therefore, one does not know when the trial will conclude. The applicant has already been incarcerated for about 2 years and 6 months. It would be useful to refer to the judgment of 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 Piyush Mahajan 5 25-Cr.BA-1074-2026 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.” 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.” Piyush Mahajan 6 25-Cr.BA-1074-2026 From the observations of the Supreme Court referred to above, it is immaterial as to what offence has been committed by the applicant when the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. The fundamental right of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is of great importance. The Supreme Court, in unequivocal terms, has held that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the context of speedy trial, is a right of the accused. Under such circumstances, considering the observations of the Supreme Court and the fact that the applicant has been behind bars for more than 2 years and 6 months, I am inclined to grant bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R (i) The Criminal Application is allowed; (ii) The applicant/accused (Ashok Ramkesh Yadav) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.188/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(j)(l)(n), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 6, 8 & 12 of the Protection of Piyush Mahajan 7 25-Cr.BA-1074-2026 Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered with Police Station Kamptee, 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 applicant shall not reside within the jurisdiction of Kamtpee / New Kamptee, Police Station; (iv) 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; (v) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to the Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency; (vi) 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; (vii) Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as per rules; Piyush Mahajan 8 25-Cr.BA-1074-2026 (viii) The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same; (ix) 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: 08/10/2026 18:17:24