1 36.36A.991.2026.998.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.991 OF 2026 Anand Prabhakar Kakde ..vs.. State of Maharashtra WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 998 OF 2026 Sandeep Revnath Jagnale ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1012 OF 2026 Veervyankatrao @ Vyankat @ Vyankatrao Satyanarayan Wakalpudi ..vs.. 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Criminal Application No.991/2026 Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant. Criminal Applicat ion No.998/2026 Shri M.N. Ali, Advocate for the applicant. Criminal Application No.1012/2026 Shri Anil S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Shri S.M. Chimote, Advocate for the applicant. Shri H.R. Dhumale, APP for the non-applicants/State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 18.08.2026. Heard. 2. By way of these applications, the applicants are seeking bail in connection with Crime No.783 of 2023 registered with Mauda Police Station Nagpur rural for the offence punishable under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420, 413, 409, 109, 120B, 411, 406, 201, 465 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial 2026:BHC-NAG:10812 2 36.36A.991.2026.998.2026 Establishments) Act, 1999, mainly on the ground of delay in trial. 3. The FIR came to be lodged alleging that the applicant along with other accused persons have duped the innocent farmers by making them to open bank accounts for seeking benefits under various government schemes granting relief to those who had suffered losses due to crop failure, etc., and duped them for Rs.2,10,38,407/- and therefore the report. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submit that there is inordinate delay in trial. The FIR was registered on 30.08.2023 and the applicant Anand Kakde is in jail since 02.11.2023, applicant Sandeep Jagnale is in jail since 15.12.2023 whereas applicant Veervyankatrao @ Vyankat @ Vyankatrao is in jail since 28.10.2023. The charge-sheet has been filed on 07.03.2024. 5. Learned Counsels for the applicants submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the main accused namely Ramanrao Bolla and Tirupati Bolla vide order dated 26.05.2026 whereas this Court has granted bail to the wife of main accused i.e. Vijaylaxmi w/o Ramanrao Bolla vide order dated 22.10.2024. 6. The applicant Anand Kakde approached this Court as well as to the Hon’ble Supreme Court however he was not successful, as the Supreme Court has dismissed his petition for Special Leave to Appeal by granting liberty to renew his request if the charges are not framed within three months from the date of the order. He submits that even after more than one year no 3 36.36A.991.2026.998.2026 charges are framed and he is behind bars since more than three years and therefore, his right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is grossly violated, and hence he prayed to be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective applicants submit that this is the first bail application of the applicant Sandeep Jagnale and applicant Veervyankatrao @ Vyankat @ Vyankatrao before this Court. Since the main accused and other two accused are released on bail, the present applicants prayed to be enlarged on bail. 8. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposed the applications by inviting my attention to the facts of the present case and submitted that the innocent farmers were cheated by the applicants. There is no delay on the part of the prosecution, however, one accused Ramanrao has approached this Court, challenging the invocation of the MPID provisions. Accordingly, this Court has restrained the Trial Court from framing of charge. Ultimately the said Criminal Application (APL) under Section 482 was allowed by this Court thereby quashing the provisions of the MPID. The State Government has challenged the said order before the Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court has issued the notice. So far as the bail granted to the main accused Ramanrao Bolla is concerned, that was granted on the basis of ill health of said Ramanrao Bolla and due to which the trial is delayed. So far as the applicant Anand Kakde is concerned, he has duped the innocent farmers 4 36.36A.991.2026.998.2026 by making forged loan cases from the Corporation Bank whereas applicant Sandeep Jagnale is the Manager of that Bank, who in collusion with the accused persons committed the offence of cheating. It is submitted that applicant Sandeep is a habitual offender as he has previously committed similar type of offence. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the applications are prayed to be rejected. 9. I have considered the rival submission and perused the record. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of delay in trial in catena of judgments stating that the accused cannot be put behind bars for indefinite period, if the trial has not progressed. 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 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.” 11. 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 5 36.36A.991.2026.998.2026 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 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.” 12. Even in the recent judgment in case of Anoop Singh .vs. 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.” 13. It appears that the applicants are in jail since 6 36.36A.991.2026.998.2026 more than three years. Till today no charges are framed. It may be because of the fact that this Court has restrained the Trial Court from framing the charge under the MPID but this Court has not restrained the Trial Court from framing the charge under the other provisions i.e. IPC and Information Technology Act. In view of the above exposition of law and considering the fact that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant are in jail since more than 3 years, and there is delay in trial due to which the applicants’ fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is grossly violated, I am inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail. Hence the following order : (a) The applications are allowed. (b) The applicants namely Anand Prabhakar Kakde, Sandeep Revnath Jagnale and Veervyankatrao @ Vyankat @ Vyankatrao Satyanarayan Wakalpudi in connection with Crime No.783 of 2023 registered with Mauda Police Station Nagpur rural for the offence punishable under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420, 413, 409, 109, 120B, 411, 406, 201 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety, each, in the like amount. (c) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person 7 36.36A.991.2026.998.2026 acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (d) The accused shall provide their residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change their place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (e) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If they fail to attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or fail to comply with the aforesaid conditions, their default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 14. The observations are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same . 15. All Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 17:48:02