1 34-Cr.BA-1032-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 1032 OF 2026 Umesh @ Shettya Kishor @ Balu Bhise -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. S.S. Dhote, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026. Heard. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.313/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered with Police Station Paratwada, District Amravati. 3. As per the First Information Report, the informant stated that on 28/02/2023, his father Laxmanrao Gaikwad was at home with him. On 29/02/2023, his father left at 09:00 a.m. and returned home along with Umesh @ Shetty Balu Bhise and Sudhir Umale around 12:30 p.m.. At about 3:00 p.m., the informant allegedly saw Umesh carrying an axe, and at about 3:30 p.m., he saw Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:11505 2 34-Cr.BA-1032-2026 Umesh and Sudhir fleeing from his house, with bloodstains on their clothes and faces. On entering the house, the informant found his father lying in a pool of blood with injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The informant thereafter informed the police, and on the basis of his report, a crime was registered against Umesh @ Shetty Balu Bhise and Sudhir Umale for causing the death of Laxmanrao Gaikwad with an axe, in furtherance of their common intention. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant raised the ground of “delay in trial.” He submits that the applicant’s right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated. Though seven witnesses were examined in December, 2025, thereafter, not a single witness has been examined. He further submits that the prosecution is going to examine 27 witnesses, as shown in the list of witnesses. The applicant is behind bars since 01/03/2023. More than 3 years are over, however, till today, the trial is not concluded. Under such circumstances, since for more than 8 months not a single witness has been examined, therefore, he prayed to grant bail by imposing stringent conditions. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the application and submits that Piyush Mahajan 3 34-Cr.BA-1032-2026 the applicant is a history-sheeter. She submits that the first offence was registered in the year 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. She further submits that another offence was registered in the year 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. At present the applicant has committed a serious offence under Section 302. Under such circumstances, when the evidence is already started and seven witnesses have been examined, at the most, she submits that the trial can be directed to be concluded within a stipulated period, and therefore, she prayed to reject the application. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. This Court has called for a status report from the trial Court in order to ascertain the status of the trial. Accordingly, the same has been received. Upon perusal of the status report, it appears that the applicant was arrested on 01/03/2023, whereas the charges were framed after more than 2 years, i.e., on 03/05/2025. It further appears that the total number of witnesses shown in the charge-sheet are 27, and till today, seven witnesses have been examined. It further appears that the last witness was examined on 24/12/2025. Therefore, it is crystal clear that Piyush Mahajan 4 34-Cr.BA-1032-2026 since 24/12/2025, i.e., for almost 8 months, not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. The applicant is behind bars for more than 3 years, which is not in dispute. So far as offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC is concerned, it was submitted that he was acquitted of that crime. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and in view of the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, wherein it is held that speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the gravity of the offence is irrelevant while considering the bail application on the ground of “delay in trial”, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case to be enlarged on bail, and therefore, I am inclined to grant bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Application is allowed; (ii) The applicant/accused (Umesh@ Shetty Kishor @Balu Bhise) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.313/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered with Police Station Piyush Mahajan 5 34-Cr.BA-1032-2026 Paratwada, District Amravati, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent 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, and also shall not tamper with the evidence; (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to the Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency; (v) 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) Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan Signed by: Piyush Ramesh Mahajan Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/09/2026 19:27:44