Bombay High Court
SACHIN DILIP SONWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court granted bail to the accused, holding that the lengthy pre‑trial detention violated the right to a speedy trial and warranted release on bail.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Sachin Dilip Sonwane, accused of murder, attempted murder and abetment of suicide under IPC Sections 302, 307 and 201 read with 34. The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of the accused’s daughter, who claimed to have seen her mother being assaulted and hung by the accused and two female accomplices. The applicant had already been in pre‑trial detention for five years and six months, and only five of the anticipated thirty‑five witnesses had been examined, indicating a slow trial. The court examined the tension between the gravity of the offences and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Balancing these factors, the judge held that the prolonged incarceration justified granting bail, subject to strict conditions, and ordered the applicant’s release on bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of murder and related offences despite the seriousness of the crime
- Whether the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution outweighs the prosecution’s concerns about the gravity of the offence
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 307, 34
Subjects
- bail
- Section 439 CrPC
- right to speedy trial
- pre‑trial detention
- murder
- IPC
- Article 21
Judgment
19. BA-3637-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3637 OF 2026
Sachin Dilip Sonwane .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Amit Icham a/w Mr. Chaitanya Purankar, Advocates for
Applicant
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Icham, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for State.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking Bail
in connection with C.R. bearing No. 384/2021 dated 28.04.2021
registered at Yavat Police Station, District Pune for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 201 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
3. Applicant is indicted as Accused No.1 in the present crime.
There are two other accused persons who had aided and assisted
Applicant who are women, but they have been enlarged on bail.
Applicant is accused of having murdered his wife. The reason is
obvious from the record which probably may have led to the incident
1 of 5
19. BA-3637-26.odt
in question. There is no direct evidence of any eyewitness to the
incident, because the case of the prosecution stems from the fact that
when the child eyewitness, daughter of Applicant, had woken up at
4:00 AM in the morning, she had seen that Applicant and the two
other accused persons were attempting to hang the victim to the
ceiling fan.
4. The case of the prosecution is that at the same time the child
witness has infact stated that when she woke up, she had seen the
body of her mother lying on the floor in the kitchen and the Applicant
sitting over the body and attempting to strangle the victim. One
important factor to consider in the present case for grant of bail is the
long incarceration of Applicant for more than five years and six
months in prison. Charge is framed on 28.07.2023 and out of the
probable 35 witnesses, prosecution has examined only five witnesses
and the trial is abysmally slow in its pace.
5. The ignominy of the trial being concluded in the near
foreseeable future being bleak, I am inclined to consider the case of
long incarceration for grant of bail to Applicant. Though the learned
prosecutor, Ms. Talhar has made a vehement and valiant effort to
persuade me from passing any other alternate order other than
releasing the Applicant on bail in view of the gravity and the
heinousness in which Applicant has murdered his wife and which has
2 of 5
19. BA-3637-26.odt
been seen by the child witness, namely his daughter. However, the
prosecutor may be right insofar as the gravity of the crime is
concerned, but the same does not entitle the prosecution to also
simultaneously delay the trial. Right to speedy trial, being ingrained
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India therefore comes to the
fore and hence I am inclined to consider the Applicant’s case. Though
Ms. Talhar also argued that the prosecution may be put to terms to
complete the trial within a time-bound program, I am not inclined to
accept the said submission of the prosecution solely on account of my
experience sitting as a bail judge in this roster. Not a single trial has
ever been concluded within the time that can be promised by the
prosecution, and I do not blame the prosecution for the delay that
occurs in the system. The prosecution undoubtedly takes all efforts to
ensure that the trial takes place, but there are various other factors
which lead to protraction of the trial.
6. In that view of the matter, five years and 6 months being a long
period of incarceration pending trial, I am inclined to consider it for
grant of bail. Applicant is therefore released on bail.
7. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released on bail
from prison in connection with Crime No. 384 of 2021;
3 of 5
19. BA-3637-26.odt
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
only) with one or two sureties in the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Yavat Police Station, once every month on the first
Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and /
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
4 of 5
19. BA-3637-26.odt
8. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in
the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
9. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.28
19:36:34 +0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…