Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Trumps Severity of Offence: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in Pansare Murder Case - 2026-06-01

Liberty Over Seriousness: Bombay HC Grants Bail in Pansare Murder Case Due to Protracted Trial

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Sachin Prakashrao Andure, an accused in the 2015 murder case of Govind Pansare, citing the prolonged incarceration of the accused and the lack of a "trial in sight." Justice Anil S. Kilor, presiding over the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, invoked the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21, asserting that the right to a speedy trial is constitutional and cannot be sidelined by the nature of the alleged offence.

A Long Road to Justice: Case Background

The case originates from Crime No. 39 of 2015, registered at Rajarampuri Police Station, Kolhapur. The tragic event, involving the fatal shooting of Govind Pansare, occurred in February 2015. Sachin Andure, listed as accused number 10, has been in custody since September 6, 2019. Despite the severity of the charges—which include conspiracy and murder—the trial has faced significant delays, with the matter shifting between investigators from a Special Investigation Team to the ATS, Pune.

The Clash of Arguments

During the bail hearing, the defense team, led by Mr. Niteen Pradhan, argued that the prosecution's case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and a witness statement that was recorded over three and a half years after the incident. They emphasized that the accused has already spent over five years in jail as an undertrial.

Conversely, the State’s counsel and the intervenor, Dr. Megha Pansare, strongly opposed the bail application. Their arguments rested on the "grave nature" of the crime and the negative criminal antecedents associated with the accused, asserting that public interest necessitated his continued detention.

Judicial Reasoning: The Supremacy of Article 21

In his order, Justice Kilor underscored that while the charges are undeniably serious, the legal system cannot ignore the "overarching and sacrosanct" nature of the right to life and personal liberty. The Court relied heavily on the precedent set in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra , which affirmed that bail should not be withheld as a mechanism for punishment.

The Court noted that the "manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded" has effectively infringed upon the constitutional rights of the accused to a fair and speedy trial. By analyzing previous Supreme Court rulings, the High Court clarified that even in stringent penal statutes, the constitutional mandate remains supreme.

Key Observations from the Judgment

> "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."

> "...considering the fact that statement of a witness Shri Lakhe which was recorded after more than 3½ years it gives rise to the suspicion why the said witness did not approach to the police earlier..."

> "We are dealing with a case of the accused whose guilt is yet to be established. So long as he is not held guilty, the presumption of innocence is applicable."

Final Order and Future Implications

The High Court allowed the bail application, directing Andure to furnish a P.R. Bond of ₹25,000 with one solvent surety. The order includes strict conditions, requiring the accused to attend the Rajarampuri Police Station twice a month and mandating his physical attendance at all trial hearings.

The decision marks a significant reaffirmation of judicial principles regarding long-standing undertrial prisoners, signaling that even in high-profile homicide cases, the judiciary will intervene when the procedural delay threatens the constitutional presumption of innocence.