1 34.ba.1098.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1098 OF 2026 Dilpreetsingh Kulbindersingh Virk ..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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Nazeem Qureshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 16.09.2026. Heard. 2. Learned APP appearing for the State filed a reply across the bar. The same is taken on record. 3. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.256 of 2024 registered with Kapil Nagar Police Station, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, mainly on the ground of delay in trial. 4. The FIR came to be lodged by the brother of the deceased alleging murder at the hand of the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is inordinate delay in trial. The FIR was registered on 26.06.2024, the applicant was arrested on 26.06.2024 whereas the charges came to be framed on 17.02.2025, thereafter there is no progress in the trial. Even after 1 year and 6 months, till today, not a single witness has been examined. Learned Counsel for the applicant relied 2026:BHC-NAG:12354 2 34.ba.1098.2026 on the Roznama to submit that on number of occasions the applicant was not produced before the Court by the Police or the Jail Authority. And therefore, applicant’s fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated and therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the offence is serious in nature, for which maximum punishment is provided up to life or death. It is further submitted that the Trial Court appreciated the fact of delay by holding that the Counsel for the accused persons has sought adjournment at the time when the witnesses were present. The prosecution was ready for recording the evidence on day to day basis and therefore, the application is prayed to be rejected. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. I have called the Status Report from the Trial Court. Upon perusal, it appears that on maximum dates the applicant was not produced before the Court by the Police or the Jail Authority only on some occasions the applicant was produced. Further on number of occasions the witnesses was absent. It also appears that other co-accused i.e. accused nos. 2 and 3 were present on some occasions and absent on some dates, due to which, non-bailable warrant was issued against them, which seems to be cancelled by the Trial Court. So far as the applicant is concerned, though the charges were framed on 17.02.2025, however till today not a single witness has been examined. 3 34.ba.1098.2026 8. 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 the bars for indefinite period, if the trial is 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.” 9. 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. 4 34.ba.1098.2026 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.” 10. 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.” 11. In view of the above exposition of law and considering the fact that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, applicant is in jail since 26.06.2024 and there is delay in trial, due to which his fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is grossly violated, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence the following order : (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicant Dilpreetsingh Kulbindersingh Virk in connection with Crime No.256 of 2024 registered 5 34.ba.1098.2026 with Kapil Nagar Police Station, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. (c) The applicant 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. (d) 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. (e) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for one date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 12. The observations are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same . 13. 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: 17/09/2026 14:43:45