Bombay High Court

Navnath Shivling BhosaleversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that the applicant's right to a speedy trial had been infringed, justifying the grant of bail despite the grave nature of the charges.

Summary

Navnath Shivling Bhosale, accused No.4 in a 2018 case involving murder, kidnapping and offences under the POCSO Act, was arrested on 4 November 2019 and remained in judicial custody for nearly 6 years and 9 months. The charge sheet was only framed on 14 August 2025 and no witness had been examined, leading the applicant to seek regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State argued the seriousness of the offences, while the applicant contended that the prolonged delay violated his right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21. Citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that extended pre‑trial detention amounts to a de facto sentence, the High Court held that the delay was not attributable to the accused and that his right to a speedy trial had been infringed. Consequently, the court granted bail with stringent conditions, including a personal bond, restrictions on entering Pandharpur jurisdiction, regular reporting to the investigating officer, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence.

Issues considered

The prolonged pre‑trial detention without charge framing or witness examination violates the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Whether the seriousness of the offences (murder, POCSO offences) outweighs the right to bail in view of the delay.
Whether bail can be granted with conditions restricting the accused's movement and imposing reporting obligations.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 307, 34, 363, 366A, 376, 376(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8

Subjects

bail
speedy trial
right to liberty
murder
POCSO
pre‑trial detention
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

40-BA-617-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 617 OF 2026
Navnath Shivling Bhosale … Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra … Respondent
----
Mr. Irshad Malik i/b Mahat Sajid Imtiyaz, for the Applicant.
Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.
Ms. Supriya Koli, for the Respondent No. 2.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 17th August, 2026.
P.C. :

1. Heard, Mr. Irshad Malik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr.

N. B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent – State and Ms. Supriya

Koli, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

2. By the present Application filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks Regular

Bail in connection with Crime No. 319 of 2018, registered with

Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, for offences punishable under

Sections 302, 307, 363, 366A, 376, 376(I), read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Arjun 1
40-BA-617-2026.doc

3. Mr. Irshad Malik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that

there are four (4) Accused in Crime No. 319 of 2018. He states that the

Applicant is Accused No. 4. He further states that Crime No. 319 of

2018 is registered as Special Case No. 51 of 2018 and is pending before

the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur (“Trial Court”).

4. The prosecution case is that the Applicant (Accused No. 4)

kidnapped the minor victim, demanded that she marry him, on her

refusal to marry, all the Accused in Crime No. 319 of 2018 visited the

house of the Victim and killed her father, and attempted to kill the

mother of the Victim.

5. The Applicant was arrested on 04.11.2019 and remains in jail.

The Bail Application at Exhibit-33, filed in Special Case No. 51 of 2018,

was rejected by the Trial Court on 13.12.2022.

6. Mr. Irshad Malik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits

that the Applicant seeks bail on the ground of his long incarceration. He

submits that the Applicant is in jail for a continuous period of almost 6

years and 9 months since his arrest. He submits that the charge was

framed on 14.08.2025. However, till date, not a single witness has been

examined. He submits that the prosecution has listed 31 witnesses. He

Arjun 2
40-BA-617-2026.doc

states that the Applicant was not produced before the Trial Court on

115 occasions. Mr. Irshad Malik, states that the Applicant is not the

cause for delay, either in framing of charge or commencing of the trial.

7. Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent – State, submits

that the offence in Crime No. 319 of 2018 is serious, as it involves the

murder of the Victim’s father and offences under the POCSO Act, 2012.

However, he does not dispute the statement made by Mr. Irshad Malik,

learned Advocate for the Applicant, that the Applicant has been in jail

for 6 years and 9 months and that the charge was framed only on

14.08.2025. He further does not dispute that the trial in Special Case

No. 51 of 2018 has not commenced.

8. Ms. Supriya Koli, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2,

submits that the offences in Crime No. 319 of 2018 are grave and

serious. She further submits that if the Applicant is released on bail, the

victim apprehends that the Applicant may influence the witnesses and

tamper with the evidence.

9. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddhant alias Sidharth

Arjun 3
40-BA-617-2026.doc

Balu Taktode v. State of Maharashtra1 in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 has

observed as follows :-

9. However, it is to be noted that this Court in the
case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 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.

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.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare v.

State of Maharashtra2 in paragraph Nos. 4 to 8 have observed as

follows:-

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3798

2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810

Arjun 4
40-BA-617-2026.doc

4. We take notice of the fact that the petitioner is in
judicial custody since 1-11-2022. Although the charge came to
be framed by the Trial Court in the year 2024, yet till this date
not a single witness has been examined.

5. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are
left with no other option but to say that the right of the accused
to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution could be said to have been infringed.

6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is
charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have
said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of
speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for
bail appropriately.

7. Here is a case wherein past almost 4 years, the
petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined.

8. We order that the petitioner be released on bail
forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and
conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.

12. The charge in Special Case No. 51 of 2018 was framed on

14.08.2025, the prosecution has listed 31 witnesses, and as on date, no

witness has been examined in Special Case No. 51 of 2018. The facts

are not in dispute.

13. There is no allegation that the delay in framing the charge or the

delay in commencing the trial is attributable to the Applicant.

14. The trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018 is unlikely to be

completed soon. In the facts of this case, the Applicant, having been in

jail for 6 years and 9 months, is justified in contending that his right to

a speedy trial has been infringed.
Arjun 5
40-BA-617-2026.doc

15. In view of the above, this Court is compelled to grant the

Applicant bail, solely on the ground of long incarceration and delay in

commencing the trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018.

16. Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent – State and Ms.

Supriya Koli, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, submit that

stringent bail conditions be imposed, including a condition that the

Applicant not enter the jurisdiction of Pandharpur District until the

conclusion of the trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018.

17. Mr. Irshad Malik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, on specific

instructions from the Applicant, states that the Applicant shall not enter

the territorial jurisdiction of Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, till

the conclusion of the trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018. The

statement is accepted.

18. In view of the above, this Application is allowed on the following

terms :-

(a) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in

connection with Crime No. 319 of 2018, registered

with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, upon

furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-
Arjun 6
40-BA-617-2026.doc

(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two

sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

Trial Court, in Special Case No. 51 of 2018.

(b) Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make

any inducement, threat or promise to Respondent No.

2 or to any person /s acquainted with the facts of the

case, to dissuade such person /s from disclosing those

facts to the Court or any police officer. Applicant shall

not tamper with evidence.

release from jail, provide to the Investigating Officer,

Pandharpur Taluka Police Station his residential

address with proof, the contact numbers and must

inform the Investigating Officer about the change in

the same from time to time.

(d) Applicant shall report to the Investigating

Officer, Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, on the 2 nd

and 4th Monday of each month, from 10:00 a.m. to

12:00 p.m. until conclusion of trial in Special Case No.

Arjun 7
40-BA-617-2026.doc

51 of 2018.

(e) Applicant shall regularly appear before the Trial

Court, in Special Case No. 51 of 2018, whenever the

matter is fixed, unless specifically exempted. If the

Applicant fails to appear before the Trial Court on the

date fixed in Special Case No. 51 of 2018, the same

would be considered a breach of condition and the

Trial Court, would be at liberty to pass appropriate

orders.

(f) The Applicant shall not enter the territorial

jurisdiction of Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, till

the conclusion of trial in Special Case No. 51 of 2018

except to mark his appearance before the Investigating

Officer, Pandharpur Taluka Police Station and for

appearing before the Trial Court, in Special Case No.

51 of 2018, whenever the matter is fixed.

(g) Applicant shall not leave the State of

Maharashtra without prior permission from the

Investigating Officer of the Pandharpur Taluka Police

Arjun 8
40-BA-617-2026.doc

Station.

19. The Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee, Kolhapur

Circuit Bench, shall quantify and pay the legal fees payable under the

Legal Aid Scheme to Advocate Ms. Supriya Koli, who has appeared and

represented Respondent No. 2 in this Application.

20. Bail Application No. 617 of 2026 is disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.08.18
10:42:28
+0530

Arjun 9

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…