Bombay High Court
Sanjay @ Sanju Raju Chetti vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Police Station ... on 4 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7584
1 17.BA.1203-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1203 OF 2024
( Sanjay @ Sanju Raju Chetti
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. PS-Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate a/w Mr. A.C. Khadse, Adv. for the Applicant.
Ms. Trupti Udeshi, APP for the Non-applicant/State.
CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 4th AUGUST, 2025
1. The Applicant came to be arrested on 30.08.2022,
in connection with Crime No.426/2022 registered with Police
Station Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 120(b) r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act
and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
2. The crime is registered on the basis of the report
lodged by the Informant that Suraj Shetty was nephew of the
Informant and he has murdered one Sahil Shetty. Therefore
Suraj was in jail for four years and after releasing from jail, he
was apprehending of the death from the relatives of Sahil, so
he was staying at Bhadrawati. On 28.08.2022, at around
06.00 p.m., the Informant had gone to shop for taking some
articles and when he was returning to his home, he saw the
present Applicant, who was the maternal cousin brother of
2 17.BA.1203-2024.odt
Sahil, was sitting near the said shop. The present Applicant
told the Informant that Suraj was threatening his family
members and asked him to inform Suraj to behave properly.
Therefore, the Informant came to his house and he called
Suraj to his house and told him and also warned him.
Thereafter, Suraj reached near the shop where the Applicant
was sitting and there was altercation between them and
during that altercation the present Applicant took out weapon
i.e. Sattur and inflicted blow on neck of the deceased and the
deceased was eliminated. On the basis of the said report
Police have registered the crime against the present Applicant.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant who
submitted that besides the merit of the case, one of the
ground raised by him in the Application is that there is
inordinate delay in trial. Though the Applicant is arrested on
30.08.2022, till today no charges are framed, and therefore,
the right of the present Applicant is to the speedy trial
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is
affected. In view of that, the present Applicant be released on
bail.
4. Learned APP, strongly opposed the said
application and submitted that considering the nature of the
evidence that there are eye witnesses to the incident, the
deceased has sustained the injuries on the vital parts of the
body. There was previous dispute between the parties, the
nature of the injuries shows the intention on the part of the
present Applicant. Thus, considering all these circumstances,
the Application deserves to be rejected.
3 17.BA.1203-2024.odt
5. The learned Counsel for the Applicant placed
reliance on various decisions in the case of Siddhant alias
Sidharth Balu Taktode Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.,
2024 SCC Online SC 3798, Gaurav Bandu Patil Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1258, Criminal
Application (BA) No.723/2024, Sukesh Kaildas Mendhe Vs.
State of Maharashtra, decided on 23.01.2025 and Criminal
Application (BA) No.1096/2024, Pranay Raju Saidal Vs. State
of Maharashtra, decided on 06.01.2025 and submitted that in
all these decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Court has considered the long incarceration and the right of
the accused of a speedy trial. He submitted that, in the case of
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.,
(2024) 9 SCC 813, wherein the appellant was facing charges
under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, the Court held that howsoever the serious crime may
be, the accused has right of speedy trial as enshrined in the
Constitution of India. The Court further highlighted the object
of the bail and opined that the object is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial. On the speedy trial, the
Supreme Court has taken aid of its earlier judgment in the
case of Hussainara Khatoon (1) Vs. State of Bihar (1980), 1
SCC 81, which reads as under:-
"10. Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon (1) Vs. State
of Bihar, this court had declared that the right to
speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is
"implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21
as interpreted by this Court". Remarking that a valid
procedure under Article 21 is one which contains a
procedure that is "reasonable, fair and just" it was
held that : (SCC p. 89, para 5).
4 17.BA.1203-2024.odt
"5. ...Now procedure prescribed by law for depriving
a person of liberty cannot be "reasonable, fair or just"
unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for
determination of the guilt of such person. No
procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick
trial can be regarded as "reasonable, fair or just" and
it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore,
be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we
mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and
essential part of the fundamental right to life and
liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which
would, however, arise is as to what would be the
consequence if a person accused of an offence is
denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his
liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed
trial in violation of his fundamental right under
Article 21."
6. On going through the entire investigation papers it
reveals that the deceased was died due to assault at the hands
of the present Applicant. The involvement of the present
Applicant reveals from the investigation papers. On the basis
of the statements of the eye witnesses as well as the
circumstantial evidence like the recovery of the weapon at the
instance of the present Applicant. The PM report also shows
that the deceased has sustained the injuries and from the
nature of the injuries it reveals that there was an intention to
cause his death. However, it is also an admitted position that
though he was arrested on 30.08.2022 still charges are not
framed. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
expeditious trial is an integral an essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of
Constitution of India irrespective of the nature of the crime
and if the said right is violated then the prayer of the
Applicant deserves to be accepted. In view of that, the
5 17.BA.1203-2024.odt
Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following order.
ORDER
i. The Application is allowed.
ii. The Applicant - Sanjay @ Sanju Raju Chetti in
connection with Crime No.426/2022 registered
with Police Station Bhadrawati, District
Chandrapur for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 120(b) r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 4/25 of the Indian Arms
Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
be released on bail, on executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount.
iii. The Applicant shall not enter into the city of
Chandrapur except attending the proceeding
before the Sessions Court at Chandrapur.
iv. The Applicant shall not induce, threat or promise
any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of
the case either personally or by way of electronic
media.
v. The Applicant shall attend the Police Station at
Wardha twice in a month i.e. on 1st and 15th of
every month and the concerned Police Station
Officer shall record his presence in the Police
Station.
6 17.BA.1203-2024.odt
vi. The Applicant shall not indulge himself in similar
type of activities and single registration of the
offence would lead to the cancellation of bail.
vii. The Applicant shall attend the proceedings before
the Trial Court without seeking any exemption
unless there are exceptional circumstances.
7. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed
of accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
SD. Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/08/2025 14:46:13
