40-BA-617-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 617 OF 2026 Navnath Shivling Bhosale … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent ---- Mr. Irshad Malik i/b Mahat Sajid Imtiyaz, for the Applicant. Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Supriya Koli, for the Respondent No. 2. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 17th August, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard, Mr. Irshad Malik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent – State and Ms. Supriya Koli, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. 2. By the present Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks Regular Bail in connection with Crime No. 319 of 2018, registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 363, 366A, 376, 376(I), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Arjun 1 40-BA-617-2026.doc 3. Mr. Irshad Malik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that there are four (4) Accused in Crime No. 319 of 2018. He states that the Applicant is Accused No. 4. He further states that Crime No. 319 of 2018 is registered as Special Case No. 51 of 2018 and is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur (“Trial Court”). 4. The prosecution case is that the Applicant (Accused No. 4) kidnapped the minor victim, demanded that she marry him, on her refusal to marry, all the Accused in Crime No. 319 of 2018 visited the house of the Victim and killed her father, and attempted to kill the mother of the Victim. 5. The Applicant was arrested on 04.11.2019 and remains in jail. The Bail Application at Exhibit-33, filed in Special Case No. 51 of 2018, was rejected by the Trial Court on 13.12.2022. 6. Mr. Irshad Malik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant seeks bail on the ground of his long incarceration. He submits that the Applicant is in jail for a continuous period of almost 6 years and 9 months since his arrest. He submits that the charge was framed on 14.08.2025. However, till date, not a single witness has been examined. He submits that the prosecution has listed 31 witnesses. He Arjun 2 40-BA-617-2026.doc states that the Applicant was not produced before the Trial Court on 115 occasions. Mr. Irshad Malik, states that the Applicant is not the cause for delay, either in framing of charge or commencing of the trial. 7. Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent – State, submits that the offence in Crime No. 319 of 2018 is serious, as it involves the murder of the Victim’s father and offences under the POCSO Act, 2012. However, he does not dispute the statement made by Mr. Irshad Malik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, that the Applicant has been in jail for 6 years and 9 months and that the charge was framed only on 14.08.2025. He further does not dispute that the trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018 has not commenced. 8. Ms. Supriya Koli, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, submits that the offences in Crime No. 319 of 2018 are grave and serious. She further submits that if the Applicant is released on bail, the victim apprehends that the Applicant may influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. 9. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddhant alias Sidharth Arjun 3 40-BA-617-2026.doc Balu Taktode v. State of Maharashtra1 in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 has observed as follows :- 9. However, it is to be noted that this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, while considering the twin conditions, as applicable under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has held that prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence without undergoing the trial. In the said case of Manish Sisodia (supra), the Court has also held that the right to speedy trial is also one of the facets of the rights flowing from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), has been constantly followed in various other judgments including the case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement. 10. The material placed on record would reveal that for a period of the last six years, out of 102 dates, the accused has not been produced before the Court either physically or through virtual mode on most of the dates. On the last date, we had put a query to the learned counsel appearing for the State as to why the charges were not framed as of date in this case. Shri Kilor fairly states that the charges have not been framed in the cases which are registered prior to the registration of the present case. We may say with anguish that this is a very sorry state of affairs. If an accused is incarcerated for a period of approximately five years without even framing of charges, leave aside the right of speedy trial being affected, it would amount to imposing sentence without trial. In our view, such a prolonged delay is also not in the interest of the rights of the victim. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra2 in paragraph Nos. 4 to 8 have observed as follows:- 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3798 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810 Arjun 4 40-BA-617-2026.doc 4. We take notice of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 1-11-2022. Although the charge came to be framed by the Trial Court in the year 2024, yet till this date not a single witness has been examined. 5. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are left with no other option but to say that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been infringed. 6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately. 7. Here is a case wherein past almost 4 years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined. 8. We order that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose. 12. The charge in Special Case No. 51 of 2018 was framed on 14.08.2025, the prosecution has listed 31 witnesses, and as on date, no witness has been examined in Special Case No. 51 of 2018. The facts are not in dispute. 13. There is no allegation that the delay in framing the charge or the delay in commencing the trial is attributable to the Applicant. 14. The trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018 is unlikely to be completed soon. In the facts of this case, the Applicant, having been in jail for 6 years and 9 months, is justified in contending that his right to a speedy trial has been infringed. Arjun 5 40-BA-617-2026.doc 15. In view of the above, this Court is compelled to grant the Applicant bail, solely on the ground of long incarceration and delay in commencing the trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018. 16. Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent – State and Ms. Supriya Koli, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, submit that stringent bail conditions be imposed, including a condition that the Applicant not enter the jurisdiction of Pandharpur District until the conclusion of the trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018. 17. Mr. Irshad Malik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, on specific instructions from the Applicant, states that the Applicant shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, till the conclusion of the trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018. The statement is accepted. 18. In view of the above, this Application is allowed on the following terms :- (a) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 319 of 2018, registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, upon furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- Arjun 6 40-BA-617-2026.doc (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, in Special Case No. 51 of 2018. (b) Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to Respondent No. 2 or to any person /s acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade such person /s from disclosing those facts to the Court or any police officer. Applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (c) Applicant shall, within three (3) days of her release from jail, provide to the Investigating Officer, Pandharpur Taluka Police Station his residential address with proof, the contact numbers and must inform the Investigating Officer about the change in the same from time to time. (d) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer, Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, on the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. until conclusion of trial in Special Case No. Arjun 7 40-BA-617-2026.doc 51 of 2018. (e) Applicant shall regularly appear before the Trial Court, in Special Case No. 51 of 2018, whenever the matter is fixed, unless specifically exempted. If the Applicant fails to appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed in Special Case No. 51 of 2018, the same would be considered a breach of condition and the Trial Court, would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. (f) The Applicant shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, till the conclusion of trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018 except to mark his appearance before the Investigating Officer, Pandharpur Taluka Police Station and for appearing before the Trial Court, in Special Case No. 51 of 2018, whenever the matter is fixed. (g) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission from the Investigating Officer of the Pandharpur Taluka Police Arjun 8 40-BA-617-2026.doc Station. 19. The Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee, Kolhapur Circuit Bench, shall quantify and pay the legal fees payable under the Legal Aid Scheme to Advocate Ms. Supriya Koli, who has appeared and represented Respondent No. 2 in this Application. 20. Bail Application No. 617 of 2026 is disposed of. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Arjun 9 ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Digitally signed by ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Date: 2026.08.18 10:42:28 +0530