Bombay High Court

SAGAR DATTATRAY PATANGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 6 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: ASHWIN D BHOBE

Holding

Bail is granted on the ground of prolonged incarceration without charge.

Summary

The applicant, Sagar Dattatray Patange, accused No.2 in a case involving multiple IPC offences and sections of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, has been in judicial custody since 18 February 2021 without any charge being framed. The applicant sought regular bail, arguing that the prolonged incarceration of over five years violated his right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The State did not dispute the duration of custody but offered no substantive justification for the delay. Citing Supreme Court precedents, notably Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and the observations in Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode, the Court held that such delay amounts to imposing a sentence without trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail on the sole ground of prolonged incarceration, subject to stringent conditions including a surety bond, reporting requirements, and restrictions on movement.

Issues considered

Whether prolonged incarceration without framing of charges justifies granting bail.
Whether the right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21 mandates bail in such circumstances.
Whether bail can be granted despite the seriousness of the offences under the IPC and MCOC Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 201, 302, 34, 364, 364A, 380, 386, 411, 414, 457
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(4)

Subjects

bail
prolonged incarceration
right to speedy trial
MCOC Act
IPC offences
regular bail
judicial delay

Judgment

502-BA-154-2026.doc

GAYATRI
Digitally signed
by GAYATRI
RAJENDRA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJENDRA SHIMPI
SHIMPI Date: 2026.08.06
18:39:33 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2026

Sagar Dattatray Patange … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
---

Mr. Manoj Gadkari (Thr. V.C.) a/w Mr. Dixit Parmar, Advocates
for Applicant.
Mr. V. B. Konde-deshmukh, APP for the Respondent – State.
---

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026

P.C. :

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Gadkari, learned Advocate for the

Applicant and Mr. V. B. Konde-deshmukh, learned APP for the

Respondent/State.

2. By this Application, the Applicant seeks Regular Bail in

C. R. No. 107 of 2021 registered at Pimpri Police Station, District

Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 386, 364A, 364,

201, 120B, 457, 380, 411, 414 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

Gayatri shimpi 1
502-BA-154-2026.doc

1860 (“IPC”) and under Sections 3(1)(i)(ii) and 3(4) of the

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act”).

The said crime is registered as MCOC Case No. 597 of 2021 and is

pending before the Court of the Special Judge under the MCOC

Act, Pune (Special Court). There are nine accused in the present

case. The Applicant is Accused No. 2.

3. Mr. Manoj Gadkari, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

submits that the Applicant was arrested on 18 February 2021 and

has been in jail since then. He further submits that the Bail

Application (Exhibit- 87) filed by the Applicant in MCOC Case No.

597 of 2021 was rejected by the Special Court on 22.09.2025.

4. Mr. Manoj Gadkari, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

restricts this Application on the ground that the Applicant has been

in jail for more than five years and that to date no charge has been

framed in MCOC Case No. 597 of 2021. He submits that the

Applicant was not produced before the Special Court on 79

occasions. He further submits that the prosecution has enlisted 110

witnesses in the present case. He submits that commenced and

Gayatri shimpi 2
502-BA-154-2026.doc

conclusion of the trial will be delayed.

5. Mr. V. B. Konde-deshmukh, learned APP for the

Respondent/State, does not dispute that the Applicant has been in

jail since 18 February 2021 and that the charge has not been

framed in MCOC Case No. 507 of 2021.

6. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned

Advocates for the parties.

7. The record reveals that the Applicant (Accused No. 2)

has been in jail since 18 February 2021, i.e. for almost 5 years and

5 months as on date.

8. In the case of Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode

(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 9 and 10, 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

Gayatri shimpi 3
502-BA-154-2026.doc

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. 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.”

(Emphasis supplied)”

9. In view of the above, this Court is compelled to release

the Applicant on bail on the sole ground of prolonged

incarceration.

10. Mr. Manoj Gadkari, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

states that Pappu @ Umesh Sudhir More, Accused No. 4 in Crime

No. 107 of 2021 of has been released on bail by order dated

10.06.2026 in Criminal Bail Application No. 2149 of 2025 on the

ground of long incarceration. He submits that Accused No. 4 was

Gayatri shimpi 4
502-BA-154-2026.doc

in jail for almost 5 years and 3 months, whereas the Applicant is

also in jail for 5 years and 5 months. He tenders a photostat copy

of the order dated 10.06.2026, which is taken on record and

marked “X’’ for identification.

11. Mr. Manoj Gadkari, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

on instructions, states that the Applicant shall not enter the

jurisdiction of the Pimpri-Chinchwad Commissionerate till the

conclusion of MCOC Case No. 597 of 2021. Statement accepted.

12. This Bail Application is allowed on the following

conditions:

(a) Applicant be released on bail in Crime No. 107 of
2021 registered with Pimpri Police Station, Dist. Pune upon
furnishing PR. Bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- with one or
two local sureties in the like amount to the atisfaction of the
Court of Special Judge (Under MCOC Act), Pune in MCOC
Case No. 597 of 2021.

(b) Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case to dissuade that person from disclosing

Gayatri shimpi 5
502-BA-154-2026.doc

the facts to the Court or any Police Officer. The Applicant shall
not tamper with evidence.

(c) Applicant, upon release within 3 days, shall furnish
his residential address, proof and contact details to the
Investigating Officer, Pimpri Police Station, Dist. Pune.

(d) Applicant shall deposit his passport, if any, with the
Court of the Special Judge under the MCOC Act, Pune, in
MCOC Case No. 597 of 2021, within three (3) days of his
release from jail.

(e) Applicant shall attend each date of hearing in MCOC
Case No.597 of 2021 before the Court of the Special Judge,
under MCOC Act, Pune, unless exempted.

(f) Applicant shall attend and report to the Investigating
Officer, Pimpri Police Station, Dist. Pune on every 1 st and 4th
Monday of every month from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. till conclusion
of trial in MCOC Case No. 597 of 2021.

(g) Applicant shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of
the Pimpri-Chinchwad Commissionerate until the conclusion
of MCOC Case No. 597 of 2021. Applicant shall enter the
jurisdiction of Pimpri-Chinchwad Commissionerate only for
the purpose of marking his attendance with the Investigating
Officer and for attending the hearing in MCOC Case No.597
of 2021.

Gayatri shimpi 6
502-BA-154-2026.doc

(i) Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the State
of Maharashtra without permission of the Court of Special
Judge, under MCOC Act, Pune.

13. Bail Application No. 154 of 2025 is allowed in the

above terms.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Gayatri shimpi 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…