Order 160926ba1075.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO.1075 OF 2026. Shivlal Babulal Dhande. -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri M.N. Ali, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri N.R. Rode, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026. Heard. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.509/2023 registered with Dharni Police Station, Amravati Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Smt.Anita Dhande alleging that on 30.08.2023 at about 8 p.m. her husband came and as usual started shouting, Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:12422 Order 160926ba1075.26 2 therefore, she and her daughter-in-law went outside. At that time, accused persons including the applicant came there and started quarreling with her husband and also assaulted him. During the assault, co-accused Sunil and applicant strangulated the deceased by means of a towel. Therefore, the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant had raised the ground of delay in trial. He submits that the fundamental right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India guaranteed to the applicant, has been grossly violated. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.08.2023. It is further submitted that more than three years had lapsed, and yet charges are not framed. It is submitted that out of 88 dates before the trial Court, the applicant was not produced before the Court for almost 58 dates. Other accused nos.3 and 4 are consistently absent, and therefore, non bailable warrant was issued against them, however, instead of taking them in custody, the Court below has cancelled their warrant and due to that charges are not framed till date. The learned Counsel further submits that applicant cannot be blamed for his Rgd. Order 160926ba1075.26 3 absence. He submits that considering the ratio in the case of Union of India .vrs. K.A. Najeeb – (2021) 3 SCC 713, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the offenses committed by the applicant are serious in nature. He submits that merely on the ground of delay in trial, the applicant cannot be released on bail. As entire facts and circumstances of the case are required to be considered, and the fact that accused nos.3 and 4 are not cooperating in conducting the trial, in such circumstances, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. This Court has called for the status report from the trial Court. Perusal of which reveals that charge sheet was filed on 14.12.2023, however, till date charges are not framed. The status report further shows that accused nos.3 and 4 were released on bail on 23.02.2024 and 20.12.2023 respectively, however, they are continuously absent, therefore non bailable warrant was issued against them, Rgd. Order 160926ba1075.26 4 however, said warrant was cancelled by the Court. It can be further gathered from the said status report, that accused nos.1 and 2 are not produced by the jail authorities and therefore, also charge is not framed against any of the accused and trial is delayed, due to inaction on the part of the police machinery. In such circumstances, in my opinion the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period when the prosecution is going to examine 25 witnesses. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention here that even till today the Court also has not taken any steps for framing charge. Infact the Court could have taken stringent action against accused nos.3 and 4. Cancellation of non bailable warrant, shows that the prosecution is not willing to conduct the trial in near future, as it failed to resist the cancellation. In such circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. Rgd. Order 160926ba1075.26 5 (ii) The applicant /accused Shivlal Babulal Dhande be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.509/2023 registered with Dharni Police Station, Amravati Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 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 enter within the territorial jurisdiction where the informant is residing, till the completion of the trial. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for single date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. (vii) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial. Rgd. Order 160926ba1075.26 6 (viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 19/09/2026 10:15:48