Bombay High Court
SIKANDAR HUSEN MULLAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the accused’s right to a speedy trial was infringed, warranting the grant of bail.
Summary
Sikandar Husen Mulla, the sole accused in a murder case (IPC 302) registered as Crime No.513 of 2021, had been in judicial custody for over 4 years 11 months without any witness examination or trial commencement. He filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The State did not dispute the length of detention but argued no trial had begun. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra, which held that prolonged pre‑trial detention infringes the speedy‑trial right and mandates bail, the Court granted regular bail with stringent conditions, including a bond, reporting requirements, and territorial restrictions. The bail application was therefore disposed of in the applicant’s favour.
Issues considered
- The accused’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 was violated by the prolonged pre‑trial detention.
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the seriousness of the offence (IPC 302).
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- speedy trial
- right to speedy trial
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 483 BNSS
- long incarceration
- criminal procedure
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
1/6
909-BA-754-2026 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 754 OF 2026
Sikandar Husen Mulla …...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. …...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Ramnik P. Pawar a/w Mr. Amit Waykool and Mr. Samadhan
Mahamulkar i/b Mr. Parvej N. Nadaf, for Applicant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State.
Mr. Ibrahim A. Attar a/w Adv. Yaseen P, for Respondent No.3.
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
_________________________________________________________________
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.09.17
15:40:12
+0530
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Ramnik P. Pawar, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State and Mr.
Ibrahim A. Attar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3.
2. By the present Application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the
Applicant seeks Regular Bail in connection with Crime No.513 of 2021
registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur,
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/6
909-BA-754-2026 (CR).DOC
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, “IPC”).
3. Crime No.513 of 2021 has been registered as Sessions Case
No.4 of 2022 and is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur.
4. The Applicant is the sole accused in the present Crime No.513 of
2021.
5. Mr. Ramnik P. Pawar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits
that the Applicant’s Bail Application is restricted on the ground of long
incarceration. He submits that the Applicant was arrested on 03/10/2021
and has since been in jail for a continuous period of more than 4 years, 11
months and 20 days. He submits that the charge was framed in Sessions
Case No.4 of 2022, on 28 th February, 2024, however, trial has not
commenced. He therefore submits that the Applicant has been denied his
right to a speedy trial.
6. Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 –
State, does not dispute that the Applicant has been in jail for 4 years, 11
months and 20 days and that the charge is framed in Sessions Case No.4 of
2022. However, trial has not commenced.
7. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates
appearing for the parties.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/6
909-BA-754-2026 (CR).DOC
8. The Applicant has been in jail for more than 4 years, 11 months
and 20 days. The charge is framed in Sessions Case No.4 of 2022, however,
not a single witnesses has been examined. The Applicant would therefore
be justified in contending that his right to a speedy trial is infringed.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare
Vs. State of Maharashtra1, in paragraph Nos.4 to 8 of the case of Sahil
Manoj Machare (Supra) are as under:
“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.”
1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/6
909-BA-754-2026 (CR).DOC
10. 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.
11. Mr. Ramnik P. Pawar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, on
instructions from the Applicant, submits that until the conclusion of the
trial in Sessions Case No.4 of 2022, the Applicant shall not enter the
jurisdiction of the City of Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur. Statement
accepted.
12. In view of the above, the Bail Application is allowed on the
following conditions.
A) The Applicant - Sikandar Husen Mulla, is directed to be
released on bail in connection with Crime No.513 of 2021
registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji,
District Kolhapur, for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC, upon furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two
solvent sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.4 of 2022.
B) The 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
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5/6
909-BA-754-2026 (CR).DOC
disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer and
shall not tamper with the evidence.
C) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer,
Shivajinagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur,
on 2nd Saturday of each month from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00
noon, till conclusion of the trial in Sessions Case No.4 of
2022.
D) The Applicant, until the conclusion of the trial in Sessions
Case No.4 of 2022, shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction
of the City of the Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur, except for
marking his appearance before the Investigating Officer,
Shivajinager Police Station, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur
and appearing in Sessions Case No.4 of 2022, as and when
fixed.
E) The Applicant shall, within three (3) days of his release
from jail, provide to the Investigating Officer, Shivajinagar
Police Station, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur, his residential
address with proof, the contact number and must inform the
Investigating Officer about the change in the same from
time to time.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
6/6
909-BA-754-2026 (CR).DOC
F) If the Applicant absents himself from appearing before the
Trial Court on the date fixed, the same would be considered
as a breach of this condition and the Trial Court would be at
liberty to pass appropriate orders.
13. Criminal Bail Application No.754 of 2026 is disposed of.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…