1 22 BA 884.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 884/2026 (Parmeshwar S/o Ashok Uparwat Vs. The 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate applicant. Ms. S. S. Dhote, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 18/08/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.558/2023 registered with Police Station Patur, Dist. Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16/12/2023, at about 10.30 a.m., whe the informant was standing with his relatives Bhimrao Uparvat, Dinkar Uparvat and Wasudeo Uparvat near the Community Hall in their locality, at some distance, near the borewell, accused Parmeshwar, Pravin Milind and Rameshwar were allegedly quarreling with and abusing Mangesh. In the meantime, Pravin and Milind held Mangesh from behind and the 2 22 BA 884.26 present applicant allegedly gave a blow with an iron pipe on the head of Mangesh. Consequently, Mangesh fell down. Thereafter, accused Pravin, Milind and Rameshwar allegedly assaulted him with kick and fist blows. The informant and his relatives immediately went to the spot, whereupon the accused persons ran away. Based on this information, the first information report was registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant raises sole ground of delay in trial to release the applicant on bail. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was arrested on 16/12/2023, whereas the charge-sheet was filed on 08/03/2024. Total four accused persons have been made as accused in the present crime, however, one of the accused was discharged. So far as the co- accused persons are concerned, they have already been granted bail. Since the applicant is the main accused, he was not released on bail at any point of time, therefore this is his first bail application which is preferred on the ground of delay in trial as since 16/12/2023, i.e. date of his arrest, he is in Jail and the charge-sheet was filed on 08-3- 2023, whereas the charges were framed after one and half years i.e. in the month of November 2025. A counter case 3 22 BA 884.26 was also filed by the applicant, wherein the applicant himself is the informant in that case. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr., 1990 SCC (Cri) 638., both the cases are to be tried simultaneously. However, the counter case was not committed to the Court of Sessions for more than two years, as the accused persons were not appearing in that case. Eventually, it was committed on 23/03/2026. Considering the long incarceration and the fact that in the charge-sheet 43 witnesses are shown, there is no likelihood that the trial would be concluded in near future and under such circumstances, the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period, as the delay is not attributable to the applicant. Accordingly, he prayed to grant bail, since the applicant’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial has been violated. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the first information was registered in the month of December 2023. The applicant was arrested on 16/12/2023. Thereafter, the accused persons filed bail applications from 4 22 BA 884.26 time to time and therefore, the Trial Court has taken some time to decide those applications. Now the summons have been issued to the witnesses and the matter is ready for evidence. Under such circumstances, she submits that it cannot be said that the delay has occurred. It is the applicant and other co-accused who are at fault as the time of the Court has been consumed in deciding those bail applications. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. The accused person has a fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the first information report was registered on 16/12/2023 and on the same day the applicant was arrested. It could be gathered from the status report submitted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Akola, that till today only summons are issued to the witnesses in both the cases. It is a matter of record that the applicant was arrested on 16/12/2023, whereas the charge sheet was filed on 08/03/2024. It is almost after one and half years the charges were framed in the month of November-2025. It would not be out of place to mention at this juncture that 5 22 BA 884.26 the counter case which was filed by the present applicant against the other accused persons is arising out of the same incident, is also pending before the Sessions Court, since it was committed after two years and one month to the Sessions Court. It appears from the record that the accused therein have not put their appearance before the Court, therefore there appears to be somewhat delay on that count also. It further appears that till today only summons are issued in both the cases, however not a single witness has been examined. Now it is almost more than two years and eight months that the applicant is behind bars. Considering the fact that there is no fault on the part of the applicant for causing delay, under such circumstances, it would be useful to refer to the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, on the ground of delay in trial which reads as under:- 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 6 22 BA 884.26 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 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 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 7 22 BA 884.26 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 recent judgment in case of Anoop Singh .vrs. U.T. of J and K (SLP (Cri) No.1398/2026 ) vide order dated 03/02/2026 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.” In the present case, considering the above exposition of law of the Supreme Court, in my opinion the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India 8 22 BA 884.26 has been violated, since the trial is yet to begin. It further appears that the charges were framed in the month of November 2025, 43 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet. Till today, not a single witness has been examined. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that it is immaterial what offence has been committed by the applicant when the application for grant of bail is being considered on the ground of delay in trial. Considering the above fact and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a case has been made out to grant bail. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Parmeshwar S/o Ashok Uparwat be released on bail in connection with Crime No.558/2023 registered with Police Station Patur, Dist. Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 323, 504 read with Section 34 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 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 9 22 BA 884.26 cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer. (v) The applicant/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. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/08/2026 14:39:49