Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5168
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J
Mr. Manish Yogesh Chadha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2314 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vikrant Kadam, Mr. Narayan Rokade, Mr. Vishal Padwal, Mr. Amar Gujar, Mr. Ramchandra Wagh, Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi
For the Respondents: Ms. Madhavi H. Mhatre
Long incarceration justifies bail when trials are excessively delayed.
Headnote:This judgment considers an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning an accused jailed since December 2017 facing murder and robbery charges. The court emphasizes the right to a speedy trial citing long incarceration as grounds for bail approval, despite ongoing trials with only a limited number of witnesses heard. The court concludes by granting bail with specific conditions to ensure cooperation during ongoing legal proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application related to long incarceration. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for bail based on right to speedy trial. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court observations on case delays and bail justification. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. final decision granting bail with conditions. (Para 10 , 11) |
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 29th JULY 2025.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Narayan Rokade, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Madhavi Mhatre, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
2. By the present Application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (“ BNSS ” for short), the Applicant is before this Court seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 352 of 2017 registered with Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune City for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 449, 394 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (“IPC” for short).
3. Mr. Narayan Rokade, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the abovesaid crime is registered as Sessions Case No.
207 of 2018 and is pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
4. There are 2 accused persons in the present crime. Applicant is Accused No. 1.
5. Applicant was arrested on 4th December 2017, since then he is in jail. Criminal Bail Application at Exhibit-55 filed by the Applicant in Sessions Case No. 207 of 2018, was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by order dated 18th July
2023.
6. Mr. Narayan Rokade, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is seeking bail on the ground of long incarceration. He submits that by order dated 30th November 2021 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 2001 of 2019, this Court in paragraph no. 4 had granted liberty to the Applicant to apply for bail upon framing of charge in the present crime (said order is at Exhibit-B of the paper-book). He submits that the Applicant is in jail for a period of 7 years and 8 months. He submits that the trial in Sessions Case No. 207 of 2018 is proceeding at a very slow pace. He submits that out of 42 listed prosecution witnesses, till date only 3 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. He therefore submits that the Applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of long incarceration. He relies on the orders of this Court in the cases of Vikas Chandrakant Patil v/s. The State of Maharashtra1 and Niklesh Prakash Patil v/s. The State of Maharashtra2 in support of his contention for grant of bail on the
1 Bail Application No. 1963 of 2025 decided on 9th May 2025. 2 Bail Application No. 1208 of 2025 decided on 8th May 2025.
grounds of long incarceration and denial of Applicant’s right to speedy trial. He submits that the Applicant is not produced before the Court for last 8 months and the prosecution is seeking time/adjournment to examine witnesses. He submits that on similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Rathore v/s. State of Rajasthan and Another3 had granted bail to the accused in that case.
7. Ms. Madhavi Mhatre, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent does not dispute the fact that the Applicant is in jail since 4th December 2017 and that the trial in Sessions Case No. 207 of 2018 is still pending. She submits that as per the list of witnesses, prosecution has to examine 39 more witnesses.
8. I have perused the records with the assistance of learned Advocates of the parties.
9. Considering the observations of this Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 2001 of 2019 and the liberty granted to the Applicant, Mr. Narayan Rokade, learned Advocate, would be justified in pressing the right of Applicant to speedy trial. It is 7 years and 8 months the Applicant is incarcerated as an under-trial. Prosecution as on date has examined only 3 witnesses out of 42 listed prosecution witnesses. Mr. Narayan Rokade, learned Advocate, would be justified in submitting that the trial in Sessions Case No. 207 of 2018 would not be concluded in the near future.
10. In view of the above and considering the Applicant’s lo
