Bombay High Court
Gurucharan Singh Karnalsingh Chahal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:36105
Digitally signed
by ARUNA
ARUNA SANDEEP
SANDEEP TALWALKAR
TALWALKAR Date: 2025.08.22 16.BA1157.2025.odt
13:43:37 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1157 OF 2025
GurucharanSingh KarnalSingh Chahal ...Applicant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent.
Mr. Deepa Punjani, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. T.G.Khan, APP for the Respondent-State.
PSI Abhaysinh Shinde, Crime Branch-03, Panvel, Navi Mumbai.
CORAM: ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J
DATED: 21st AUGUST, 2025
PC:-
1. Heard Ms. Deepa Punjani, learned Advocate for the Applicant and
Mr. T.G. Khan, 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. 115 of 2018
registered with Kalamboli Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the offences
punishable under Section 392 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
("IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOCA.
3. Said crime is registered as Special (MCOC) Case No. 109 of 2020
and is pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, District
Raigad.
4. There are four accused in the present crime. Applicant is Accused
No. 1.
5. Ms. Deepa Punjani, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that
the Applicant was arrested on 24th July, 2018 and since then he is in jail. Bail
Application filed by the Applicant at Exh. 45 in Special (MCOC) Case No. 109
of 2020 was rejected on 17th February, 2025. She submits that the Applicant is
in jail for a continuous period of more than 7 years. She submits that though
charge is framed, till date prosecution has not examined even a single
witness. She therefore submits that the case of the Applicant be considered on
the ground of long incarceration. She 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 her contention for
grant of bail on the grounds of long incarceration and denial of Applicant's
right to speedy trial.
6. Mr. Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent does not dispute
the Applicant is in jail since 24/07/2018 and trial in Special (MCOC) Case No.
109 of 2020 having not commenced till date, though charge is framed.
7. I have perused the records with the assistance of learned Advocates
1 Bail Application No. 1963 of 2025 decided on 9th May, 2025.
2 Bail Application No. 1208 of 2025 decided on 8th May, 2025.
of the parties.
8. Pre-arrest detention of the Applicant is almost 7 years and 1 month,
apart from framing of the charge, there being no progress in Special (MCOC)
Case No. 109 of 2020 are facts not in dispute
9. In the case of Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode v/s. The State of
Maharashtra and Another,3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph nos. 9,
10 & 15 to 17 has observed as under :-
"9. However, it is to be noted that this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 : 2024 INSC 595), while considering the twin
conditions, as applicable under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has
held that prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result
in forcing him to face the sentence without undergoing the trial. In the said case of Manish
Sisodia (supra), the Court has also held that the right to speedy trial is also one of the facets of
the rights flowing from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment of this
Court in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), has been constantly followed in various other
judgments including the case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2269 : 2024 INSC 632).
10. The material placed on record would reveal that for a period of the last six years, out of
102 dates, the accused has not been produced before the Court either physically or through
virtual mode on most of the dates. On the last date, we had put a query to the learned counsel
appearing for the State as to why the charges were not framed as of date in this case. Shri Kilor
fairly states that the charges have not been framed in the cases which are registered prior to the
registration of the present case. We may say with anguish that this is a very sorry state of affairs.
If an accused is incarcerated for a period of approximately five years without even framing of
charges, leave aside the right of speedy trial being affected, it would amount to imposing
sentence without trial. In our view, such a prolonged delay is also not in the interest of the rights
of the victim.
15. It is pertinent to mention that during the hearing of the present appeal, as already
discussed above, a sorry state of affairs is being depicted. The trial is being prolonged on the
ground that the appellant is not produced before the Trial Judge either physically or virtually. We
are informed that this is not a solitary case but in many cases such a difficulty arises.
16. We, therefore, direct the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Secretary, Home, State of Maharashtra and Secretary, Law and Justice, State of Maharashtra to sit
together and evolve a mechanism to ensure that the accused are produced before the Trial Judge
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3798
either physically or virtually on every date and the trial is not permitted to be prolonged on the
ground of non-production of the accused persons.
17. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Secretary, Home, State of Maharashtra and Secretary, Law and Justice,
State of Maharashtra forthwith for necessary action."
10. In the case of Rabi Prakash v/s. State of Odisha4, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph no. 4 has observed as under :-
4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for
the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far
as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has
already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally
militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo
created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
(emphasis supplied)"
11. Ms. Punjani, learned Advocate for Applicant submits that the other
co-accused viz. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been released on bail, on the
ground of their long incarceration. She submits that the Applicant is similarly
placed in the context of his detention being for 7 years.
12. It is trite law that prolonged incarceration pending conclusion of trial
is clearly violative of right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, which has been construed to right of fair as well as speedy trial. Trial
which would include examination of the prosecution witnesses, recording of
the statement of Accused under Section 351 of the BNSS and defence
evidence if any, would certainly prolong the trial. Applicant cannot continue to
be incarcerated as an under-trial, indefinitely. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, Applicant would be justified in pressing his right of denial of
speedy trial.
4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109.
13. Ms. Punjani, learned Advocate for the Applicant on instructions from
the Applicant submits that the Applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of
Raigad District till the conclusion of the trial in Special (MCOCA) Case No.
109 of 2020 except for attending hearing of the said case. Statement
accepted.
14. On the ground of prolonged incarceration of the Applicant, this
Court is constrained to enlarge the Applicant on bail. Hence, the present Bail
Application is allowed on the following conditions :-
a. Applicant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with Crime No. 115 of 2018 registered with Kalamboli
Police Station, Navi Mumbai on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two local
sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, MCOC Act, Pune.
b. Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
facts of accusation, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
c. Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence in any manner.
d. Applicant upon his release, within a period of three
days from his release, shall furnish his cell phone number and
residential address with proof to the Investigating Officer,
Kalamboli Police Station, Navi Mumbai and shall keep the same
updated, in case of any change thereto.
e. Applicant shall co-operate in the conduct of the trial
of Special (MCOC) Case No. 109 of 2020 and shall regularly
attend the hearing of the case pending on the file of Additional
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, MCOC Act, Panel, on each and
every date, unless exempted from appearance.
f. Applicant shall report/attend before the Investigating
Officer, Kalamboli Police Station, Navi Mumbai, District-Raigad on
first and last Saturday of every month from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00
p.m. till further orders from the Trial Court in the said case.
g. Applicant shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of
District-Raigad, till conclusion of the trial of Special (MCOC) Case
No. 109 of 2020, except for attending the hearing of the said case
and for the purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer,
Kalamboli Police Station, District-Raigad.
15. Criminal Bail Application No. 1157 of 2025 stands disposed of.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE,J.)
