Order 240826ba961.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 961 OF 2026. Nagesh Vinod Umale -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and another. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri U.R. Phasate, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1/State. Ms V.A. Warade, Advocate (Appointed) for Non-applicant No.2. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026. Heard. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.548/2024 registered by Balapur Police Station, Akola for the offences registered under Sections 64, 64[2][m], 65[1], 78, 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and Sections 354[d], 354[a] and 452 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The first information report came to be lodged on Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:11072 Order 240826ba961.26 2 10.10.2024 when informant and husband, returned from work at 12 noon, and knocked on the door, they that the applicant was in their bathroom, on questioning the victim about presence of the applicant in their house, she disclosed that she and applicant have love relations out of which they have established physical relations on multiple occasions. Hence, the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant raises a ground of delay in trial. He submits that the applicant was arrested on 26.11.2024, charge was framed on 12.06.2025, however, till today not a single witness has been examined. He submits that the applicant had approached this Court by filing Criminal Application No.728/2025 seeking bail, however, by order dated 05.08.2025 this Court permitted the applicant to withdraw the application with liberty to file the same after six months. Therefore, he further submits that as there is no progress in the trial, and the fact that the prosecution is to examine 22 witnesses, however, till date not a single witness has been examined, the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. Hence he prayed for grant of bail. Rgd. Order 240826ba961.26 3 5. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. and the learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2 vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the allegations against the applicant are that of sexual intercourse with the minor, aged 13 years. They submit that considering the seriousness of the crime, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. They submit that not a single witness is examined, and at earlier point of time this Court has shown its disinclination to grant bail, in such circumstances, it is submitted that merely on the ground of delay in trial, applicant cannot be released on bail, and therefore, the application be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. It is not in dispute that the applicant is behind bars since 26.11.2024. This Court has called for the status report, after perusal of the said report, it could be gathered that charges were framed on 12.06.2025, i.e. more than one year and two months, and the prosecution has a list of 22 witnesses to be examined, however, till today no witness is examined. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Rgd. Order 240826ba961.26 4 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. Rgd. Order 240826ba961.26 5 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 in a recent judgment in case of Arvind Dham .vrs. Directorate of Enforcement – (2026 SCC Online SC 30), in paragraph no.18 held as under : Rgd. Order 240826ba961.26 6 “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.” 8. As the applicant is behind bars since 26.11.2024, and charge was framed on 12.06.2025 however, till date not a single witness is examined, thus, considering the above observations of the Supreme Court, that it is immaterial what offence is committed by the applicant when there is a long incarceration of the accused and further no progress in the trial, it amounts to violation of right to speed trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. Thus, considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of cases, and more particularly in the cases referred above, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order. Rgd. Order 240826ba961.26 7 ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant /accused Nagesh Vinod Umale be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.548/2024 registered by Balapur Police Station, Akola for the offences registered under Sections 64, 64[2][m], 65[1], 78, 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and Sections 354[a], 354[d] and 452 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 of Police Station Balapur, till the completion of the trial. (iv) 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. (v) 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. Rgd. Order 240826ba961.26 8 (vi) 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) 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. (ix) Fees of the appointed Counsel be determined and paid as per Rules. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 25/08/2026 15:26:31