Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Sahil Manoj Machare – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7502 of 2026 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-03-2026 in CRBA No. 4 of 2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature Circuit Bench At Kolhapur], (IA No. 126516 of 2026
Decided On : 04-05-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Section 483 of BNSS] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bail application – Petitioner is in judicial custody since 1-11-2022 – Although charge came to be framed by Trial Court in year 2024, yet till this date not a single witness has been examined – Right of accused to have speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution could be said to have been infringed – Petitioner is charged with offence of murder but howsoever serious crime may be, if right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider plea for bail appropriately – Bail granted. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner has been denied regular bail by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in connection with crime registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.
Result : Petition disposed of. Bail granted.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
ORDER :
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. The petitioner has been denied regular bail by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in connection with Crime No.322/2022 registered with Shahapur Police Station, District Kolhapur on 1-11-2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) respectively.
3. We heard Mr. Risvi Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bagla, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra.
4. We take notice of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 1-11-2022. Although the charge came to be framed by the Trial Court in the year 2024, yet till this date not a single witness has been examined.
5. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are left with no other option but to say that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been infringed.
6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.
7. Here is a case wherein past almost 4 years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined.
8. We order that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.
9. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Bail – Howsoever serious crime may be, if right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider plea for bail appropriately
Bail – Howsoever grave crime may be, but if accused is denied his right of speedy trial and is languishing in jail for years together and for no fault on his part, he cannot be kept in jail for indef....
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and indefinite detention without trial violates constitutional guarantees, warranting bail.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount, and prolonged custody without trial can warrant the granting of bail.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that necessitates the granting of bail without arbitrary limitations when such rights are infringed.
Long incarceration of a person without trial is a clear cut case of violation of Article 21 of Constitution.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right, warranting the grant of bail.
Prolonged incarceration of undertrials due to trial delays violates Article 21 right to speedy trial, entitling bail after over 2.5 years custody with minimal trial progress and no tampering risk.
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial justifies the granting of bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
