1 54.ba.1038.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1038 OF 2026 Sharad @ Sheku s/o Manohar Sawatkar ..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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms F.N. Haidari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri H.R. Dhumale, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 19.08.2026. Heard. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.184 of 2020 registered with Bitargaon Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The First Information Report came to be lodged by father of the deceased alleging murder of his son by the applicant with the help of knife. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant is seeking bail on the ground of delay in trial. It is submitted that the applicant came to be arrested on 30.07.2020, charge- sheet was filed on 26.10.2020 and the charges were framed on 11.12.2023 and at present evidence of PW4 is going on, however in the charge-sheet total 22 witnesses are shown to be examined by prosecution and one does not know when the trial will be concluded. Therefore, his right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is grossly violated and hence the 2026:BHC-NAG:10821 2 54.ba.1038.2026 applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State vehemently opposed the application. On instructions, he submits that the trial will be concluded within one month as evidence of 4th witness is going on . Considering the seriousness of offence committed by the applicant, the application is prayed to be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of delay in trial in catena of judgments stating that the accused cannot be put behind bars for indefinite period, if the trial has not progressed. 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.” 8. 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 3 54.ba.1038.2026 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- 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.” 9. Considering the fact that the applicant is behind bars since 30.07.2020, charge-sheet was filed on 26.10.2020, charges are framed on 11.12.2023 and till today evidence of only 4th witness is going on, in view of the above exposition of law and considering the fact that there is delay in trial and the applicant’s fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence the following order : (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicant Sharad @ Sheku s/o Manohar Sawatkar in connection with Crime No.184 of 2020 registered with Bitargaon Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Section 302, of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of 4 54.ba.1038.2026 Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. (c) The applicant 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. (d) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (e) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 10. All Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 18:03:16