Order 210826ba790.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 790 OF 2026. Jagan Nana Jagdhane -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. Shri R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri D.V. Chavhan, P.P. and Senior Advocate with Shri N.R. Rode, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : AUGUST 21, 2026. Heard. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.676/2019 registered with Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 386, 506[2] read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet is filed and Section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3[1][i][ii], 3[2], 3[4], 3[5] and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) were added. Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:11062 Order 210826ba790.26 2 3. The first information report is lodged by one Jigar Patel, resident of Gujarat alleging that while looking for property, he got acquainted with One Ramesh Patil (fake name) dealing in property business for sale of property at Nagpur worth Rs.12 Crores, of which was finalized in Rs.10 Crores, on condition that 50% amount to be given in cash and remaining amount to be deposited in bank account. Accordingly payment of Rs.5 Crores in cash was deposited with Balaji Firm, as was directed by Ramesh. For ease of transaction, which amount was accordingly deposited on 05.06.2018. However, realizing that they were cheated, they asked for return of amount, which the accused persons denied and instead threatened with dire consequences. Hence report against the accused for cheating was lodged. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant raised a ground of delay in trial, due to which right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated. The applicant was arrested on 06.02.2020 and till today the trial is not concluded though more than 6 years and 7 months are over, and only two Rgd. Order 210826ba790.26 3 witnesses are examined, prosecution has given up 4 witnesses whereas in the charge sheet total 241 witnesses have been stated tobe examined, in such circumstances there is least possibility that in near future the trial will be concluded, and therefore, submits that the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. He submits that considering the facts and circumstances, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of delay in trial, as he is languishing in jail since last 6 years and 7 months. The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant will attend the trial on day to day basis and will reside in Nagpur city, as the trial is going on before the Special Court at Nagpur. 5. On the other hand the learned P.P. and Senior Counsel vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the applicant has committed serious offence in which the provisions of MCOCA are also invoked along with Indian Penal Code, and hence, at the most the trial Court be directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis. He submits that the prosecution is not at fault for the delay in trial as there are total Rgd. Order 210826ba790.26 4 12 accused persons in the matter, who have filed application for grant of bail or for other reasons, which took time and thus delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution. The prosecution is ready to conclude its side within 6 months, and in such circumstances, it is submitted that there is no merit in the application and the same deserves to be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record. This Court has called the status report from the trial Court. Perusal of said report reveals that till today 2 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and 7 witnesses are given up. Perusal of record and roznama reveals that charge sheet was filed on 03.04.2020 and charge came to be framed on 16.12.2022. In between there were 82 dates, from which it could be gathered that the applicant was not produced before the Court from jail and the matter was adjourned from time to time for one reason or the other, however, now the evidence has started and 2 witnesses are examined, whereas in the charge sheet total 241 witnesses are shown, in such circumstances it could be gathered that there is least possibility that the trial would be concluded in Rgd. Order 210826ba790.26 5 near future. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh .vrs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813; has in paragraph 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 .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 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 Rgd. Order 210826ba790.26 6 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in a recent judgment 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, Rgd. Order 210826ba790.26 7 may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail.” 9. Considering the above exposition of law and Article 21 of the Constitution, guarantees speedy trial to the accused as a fundamental right, and further as observed above by the Supreme Court, that it is immaterial what offence has been committed by the applicant, so long as there is a long incarceration of the accused and there is no progress in the trial, it amounts to violation of Article 21 (Right to Speedy Trial). In the case at hand, it appears that since the year 2025 only 2 witnesses have been examined. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. Thus, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases, and more particularly in the cases referred above, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Further the statement given by the applicant that he will reside at Nagpur and attend the trial regularly, is accepted as an undertaking to the Court. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. Rgd. Order 210826ba790.26 8 (ii) The applicant /accused Jagan Nana Jagdhane be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.676/2019 registered with Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 386, 506[2], 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3[1][i] [ii], 3[2], 3[4], 3[5] and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), 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 Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (v) The Trial Court is requested to conduct the trial on day to day basis, and 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. (vi) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of Rgd. Order 210826ba790.26 9 deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial. (vii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 25/08/2026 11:43:52