[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ajit Mungnath Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps ... on 8 April, 2026
1 22 BA 382.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 382/2026
(Ajit Mungnath Shinde Vs The State of Maharashtra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. A. G. Mate. APP for non-applicant/State.
CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATED : 08/04/2026.
Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking regular
bail in connection with Crime No.114/2018 registered with
Police Station Sindkhed Raja, Dist. Buldhan for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 452, 323, 143, 147, 148,
149, Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution story are that on
14/ 06/2018 the informant Surekha Manohar Pawar
lodged report stating therein that on 14/06/2018 when
she was present along her husband in her house at that
time around 01.30p.m., she heard a noise of motorcycle
therefore, her son went out to see as to who had come, at
that time accused Kishor Bhosale without saying anything,
started assaulting her son Pawan with sword on hand,
2 22 BA 382.26
therefore, he shouted. Thereafter the said accused Kishor
entered into her house along with Parabatrao Shinde @
Shingade who was carrying gun in his hand. The other
accused namely Ajit Shinde (present applicant) had also
come along with him carrying gupti and two unknown
persons were carrying wooden stick. The said accused
allegedly stabbed her husband with sword, thereafter
other accused persons also started assaulting with weapons
which they were carrying. The accused Parvatrao pointed
his gun at the head of the husband and therefore, her
husband ran outside the house. All the accused persons
thereafter fled away from the spot. The informant while
intervening also received injuries. On this basis of this, FIR
was lodged.
4. Principally the present application is filed on the
ground of delay in trial. The learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant was arrested on
20/04/2022. However, though almost four years have
lapsed, there is no progress in the trial. He submits that
though the charges are framed and only one witness has
been examined that too in the month of October 2025,
thereafter no witness was examined. If this speed is
3 22 BA 382.26
continued, the trial is not going to conclude even after 10
years, therefore he submits that the accused cannot be put
behind bars for indefinite period, therefore he prayed to
grant bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently
opposes the application and submits that FIR was
registered in the year 2018. Since registration of the FIR
and it is only on 20/4/2022, the applicant was arrested.
According to him, considering his past records, there is
least possibility that he will attend the trial. He further
submits that now the charges are framed and already one
witness is examined and therefore, under such
circumstances, the applicant does not deserve to be
granted bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. It appears
from the record that the earlier applications of the
applicant was rejected by this Court by its orders dated
03/07/2023 and 24/09/2024. It further appears from the
record that admittedly the FIR was registered in the year
2018, however, the applicant was not arrested by the
Investigating Officer for four years, On query made by this
4 22 BA 382.26
Court to the learned APP, whether steps under Section 82
of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code") were taken or
not, to that the learned APP submitted that no steps were
taken. Further, it appears that no steps were taken to
arrest the applicant at the relevant time. Apart from this,
the fact remains that the applicant was arrested on
20/04/2022. It further appears that the last witness was
examined in the month of October 2025. Considering the
speed of the trial, definitely the trial is not going to be
concluded in near future.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh VS State of Maharashtra and Another,
(2024) 9 SCC 813; has in para no.17 held as under:
"17. 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. Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime."
Further in case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal VS State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 8 SCC 293; it has been held in para
no.42, by the Supreme Court as under :
5 22 BA 382.26
"42. This Court has, time and again,
emphasized that right to life and personal liberty
enshrined Under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India is overarching and sacrosanct. A
constitutional court cannot be restrained from
granting bail to an Accused on account of
restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute
if it finds that the right of the Accused-undertrial
Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has
been infringed. In that event, such statutory
restrictions would not come in the way. Even in
the case of interpretation of a penal statute,
howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional
court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism
and the Rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic
part. In the given facts of a particular case, a
constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But
It would be very wrong to say that under a
particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It
would run counter to the very grain of our
constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the
matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a
three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two
Judges like us."
Even in the recent judgment in case of Anoop
Singh .vrs. U.T. of J and K (SLP (Cri) No.1398/2026 )
vide order dated 03/02/2026 has in paragraph no.8
held as under :
"8. The report is extremely disturbing. The
report highlights the sorry state of affairs at the
end of the prosecuting agency. We are at pains
to note that in last 7 years, the prosecution has
been able to examine only 7 witnesses.
Prosecution still intends to examine 17 more
witnesses. We wonder who are these 17
witnesses who are yet to be examined and if not
examined, what would be the adverse effect on
the case of the prosecution. However, the most
unfortunate part of the report of the Trial Court
is that past 82 hearings, not a single witness has
been examined."
6 22 BA 382.26
8. From the above exposition of law of the Supreme
Court, it is clear that Article 21 of the Constitution of India
guarantees right to speedy trial which is a fundamental
right of the accused. Violation of the same would entail the
applicant to seek bail. Admittedly, the applicant is behind
bars since 20/04/2022 i.e. almost 4 years. The applicant
cannot be put behind bars for indefinite period.
Considering the above facts and circumstances and the
observations of the Supreme Court, I am inclined to grant
bail, hence the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant/accused Ajit Mungnath Shinde be
released on regular bail in connection with Crime
No.114/2018 registered with Police Station Sindkhed Raja,
Dist. Buldhan for the offence punishable under Sections
307, 452, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, Sections 4 and 25 of the
Arms Act on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with
one surety in the like amount.
(iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the
evidence.
7 22 BA 382.26
(iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and
cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not
change his place of residence without prior intimation to
the concerned Investigating Officer.
(v) The applicant shall attend the police station once in a
week i.e. on every Wednesday between 10:00 a.m. to
01:00 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial.
(vi) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every
date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two
consecutive dates or fails to comply with the aforesaid
conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for
cancellation of bail.
( M. M. NERLIKAR, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/04/2026 18:19:09
