Bombay High Court
JAVED ALIAS BABLU MEHTABSAB BAGWANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- RAJNISH R VYAS
Holding
The court held that the trial is at a substantial stage and the mere allegation of delay does not justify bail, thereby denying the bail application.
Summary
The accused, Javed alias Bablu Mehtabsab Bagwan, filed a second bail application in a case involving offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging delay in the trial. The High Court examined the status report, which showed that the charge was framed on 28‑03‑2024 and several witnesses had already been examined, with further witnesses scheduled. The court noted substantial progress in the trial and the seriousness of the murder charge, including an eyewitness. It held that granting bail solely on the ground of alleged delay would be premature and could affect the merits of the case. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to bear the fees of the appointed counsel.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged delay in the trial warrants the grant of bail to the accused.
- Whether the stage of the trial, with multiple witnesses already examined, precludes bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC outweighs the bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 324
Subjects
- bail
- trial delay
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 324
- witness examination
- High Court
- Aurangabad
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:11801
1 926.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1076 OF 2025
JAVED ALIAS BABLU MEHTABSAB BAGWAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Gade Akash D.
APP for Respondent : Ms. P.V. Diggikar
...
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The applicant/sole accused has preferred second bail
application before this court in connection with FIR No. 0255/2022, for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code, on the ground that there is a delay in conducting the trial.
2. This court vide its order dated 29.01.2026, has called status
report of Sessions Case No. 6/2023, from the trial court. Accordingly, the
report is submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District
Latur, dated 05.02.2026, in which, it is stated that the charge was framed
on 28.03.2024, and PW 1 was examined on 17.02.2025, PW 2 on
27.06.2025, PW 3 on 10.11.2025 and 17.11.2025. The report further
shows that on 09.01.2026, though the witness was present, an application
was preferred at the behest of the accused praying for adjournment and
2 926.odt
cost was imposed. The next date, according to the report is 12.02.2026,
for recording of the four witnesses. Though, the chargesheet shows that
total 35 witnesses were cited but in the report, it is made clear that the
concerned prosecutor has stated that he would be examining seven more
witnesses.
3. The report thus would reveal that there is substantial
progress in trial. The fact cannot be ignored that offence is under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, in which the present applicant is the sole
accused and the accused had assaulted the victim by the knife on the
chest and head. There is eye witness to the incident also.
4. In the aforesaid background and considering the fact that
only ground which is argued is delayed in trial, I am of the opinion that
since the prosecution has already examined three witnesses, commenting
anything on the merit of the case on the basis of charge sheet may affect
the outcome of the case. Thus, the present application is rejected. The
fees of learned appointed counsel be quantified as per the rules.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SPC
Checking your session…