Order 070726ba718.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 718 OF 2026. Rahul Punitram Janghel. -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.M. Kadukar, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. Shri D.R. Upadhyay, Advocate Assisting Prosecution. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : JULY 07, 2026. Heard. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.64/2024 registered with Wadi Police Station, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet came to be filed and Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were added. 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Shubham Srivas, alleging that on 28.01.2024 he came from Kerala State to Wadhamana and at 8.30 p.m. he went outside on his motorcycle, where he met his friend, who was also on his Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:8572 Order 070726ba718.26 2 motorcycle. Both of them went to Shivnagri ground, where they found applicant- Rahul, sitting along with his friends. On the issue of asking for a cigarette, Rahul assaulted Amit with iron rod on his head, when the informant tried to intervene, he was also asaulted with iron rod. When tried to call for help, he snatched mobile phone of the informant. Amit succumbed to the injuries, and therefore, the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the bail application is filed on the ground that the fundamental right guaranteed to the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated, since the applicant was arrested on 29.01.2024, and till date evidence has not yet commenced. By relying on the roznama, she submits that on most of the dates the applicant was not produced before the Court and whenever he was produced, the case was either adjourned or the P.O. was on leave. While rejecting the application for bail, the learned trial Court on 07.05.2026 has observed that the witness was served with summons and was present, but, he could not be examined because of change of Advocate by the applicant. According to the learned Counsel, said observation is contrary to the material on record. In fact when the witnesses were present on 05.03.2026, on that date Rgd. Order 070726ba718.26 3 the P.O. was on leave. In such circumstances, the observations of the trial Court is nothing, but, without application of mind. The applicant is behind bars since 2 years and 6 months, and in such circumstances his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India needs to be considered by setting him at liberty. The learned Counsel has relied on the order of the Supreme Court in case of Pradeep Kumar @ Banu .vrs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.1341/2026 dated 13.03.2026), and submits that even in the said case the applicant was behind bars for almost 2 years and the and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms and the Supreme Court has granted him bail. She submits that incarceration without trial amounts to punishment and therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel assisting the prosecution vehemently oppose the application by submitting that there is no infringement of fundamental right of the applicant guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The proceedings are going on and after filing of charge sheet, charges were framed on 28.08.2025, therefore, in such circumstances, the prosecution cannot be Rgd. Order 070726ba718.26 4 blamed that it has failed to conduct the trial in speedy manner. They further submit that so far as dates in roznama are concerned, it is apparent that the matter is kept on day to day basis, and according to them if the accused is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he will protract the trial and would not turn to face the trial. They submit that the application being devoid of merits, same be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the material placed on record. It appears from the record that the first information report was registered on 29.01.2024, whereas the charge sheet came to be filed on 06.04.2024 and charges are framed almost after 18 months i.e. on 28.08.2025. Even after framing of the charge it appears that there is no progress in the trial and it is for the first time the witnesses were present on 05.03.2026, however, on said date the P.O. was on leave. For this reason or for other, the matter was adjourned from time to time. It is further to be noted that the applicant was also not produced from jail on number of occasions, which could be gathered from the roznama. It is further revealed that on several occasions the P.O. was either on vacation or on leave. Even this has contributed to delay in trial. The applicant has changed his Rgd. Order 070726ba718.26 5 Advocate twice, however, it appears from the record that this fact has not contributed to the delay. In such circumstances, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh .vrs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813; more particularly paragraph No.17 which is 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 .vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 8 SCC 293; it has been held in paragraph 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 Accused-undertrial Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory Rgd. Order 070726ba718.26 6 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 judgment in case of Anoop Singh .vrs. U.T. of J & K (SLP (Cri) No.1398/2026 ) vide order dated 03.02.2026, the Supreme Court 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.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in a recent judgment Rgd. Order 070726ba718.26 7 in case of Arvind Dham .vrs. Directorate of Enforcement – (2026 SCC Online SC 30), has in paragraph no.18 held as under : “18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail.” 7. From the above observations of the Supreme Court it is crystal clear that speedy trial is a fundamental right of accused person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If there is no fault on the part of the accused, in such circumstances the accused cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. In the present matter, charge sheet reveals that 35 witnesses are to be examined and one does not know when the trial will conclude. In such circumstances, as observed above, what offence is committed by the applicant is immaterial as the parameters to release the accused on bail, so far as the ground of delay in trial is concerned, is altogether different. From entire record, it could be gathered that the applicant is behind bars since more than 2 ½ years and the Rgd. Order 070726ba718.26 8 fact remains that even evidence of single witness has not been recorded. In case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), the accused was released by by the Supreme Court by observing that “almost two years have passed since the appellant was arrested without trial having commenced and conclusion thereof nowhere being in sight. Incarceration without trial amounts to punishment.” 8. Considering the above observations and material on record, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant /accused Rahul Punitram Janghel be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.64/2024 registered with Wadi Police Station, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 323, 341, 504 and 506 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 enter within the territorial jurisdiction where the informant is residing, till the completion of the trial. (iv) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any Rgd. Order 070726ba718.26 9 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (v) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change the place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (vi) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial on one date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. (vii) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial. (viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGE Rgd.