1 44 BA 1312.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1312/2026 (Sahil Satish Athawale Vs. 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. R. M. Daga, Advocate for applicant. Ms. Ritu Sharma, APP for Non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 15/10/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 2/2024 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed the present application for grant of bail only on the ground of ‘delay in trial’. He submits that the applicant was arrested on 02/01/2024, however, till today, not a single witness has been examined, though two years and eleven months have passed. After framing of the charge on 01/10/2025, the matter was awaiting Muddemal which was produced before the Trial Court on 2 44 BA 1312.26 24/03/2026. The application of the applicant for grant of bail was rejected by this Court on merits on two occasions which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, for the first time the applicant has raised the ground of delay in trial before the Trial Court which was rejected by it without taking into consideration the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was wrongly observed that only Constitutional Courts have right to pass an order dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. i.e. right to speedy trial, though it is a fundamental right of the accused persons. Therefore, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail for more than 2 years and 11 months, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the applicant has approached upto the Supreme Court for grant of bail. However, even the Supreme Court has not granted bail on merits considering serious allegations against the applicant. Merely raising the ground of delay in trial is not sufficient to grant bail to the applicant. He further submits that the prosecution is ready to conduct the trial in a speedy manner and therefore, under such circumstances, 3 44 BA 1312.26 he prayed that the application may not be allowed. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions, it appears that the applicant was arrested on 02/01/2024. The charge-sheet was filed on 27/03/2024. However, the charges were framed on 01/10/2025 i.e. almost after 1 year and 7 months. It is further to be noted that till today the recording of evidence has not started. After considering the charge-sheet, it could be gathered that the prosecution has listed 35 witnesses to be examined. Upon perusal of the order of the Trial Court, it appears that the Trial Court has miserably failed to give true meaning to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (“BNSS”) grants concurrent jurisdiction, to the Trial Court and the High Court to grant bail. Even theTrial Court can exercise the powers for grant of bail, if there is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is not only the Constitutional Courts who can grant bail on the ground of delay in trial. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant on the ground of delay in trial, as the applicant is in jail since 2 years and 11 months and 4 44 BA 1312.26 till today, not a single witness has been examined. The list of witnesses in the charge-sheet shows 35 witnesses to be examined and one does not know when the trial will conclude. Hence the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Sahil Satish Athawale be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 2/2024 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 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. 5 44 BA 1312.26 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 7. The observation 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: 15/10/2026 18:16:55