Bombay High Court
SUBHASH BHONSLE (PRESENTLY LODGED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY CENTRAL JAIL COLVALE)versusSTATE OF GOA THR THE POLICE INSPECTOR
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the prolonged delay violates the accused's right to a speedy trial, and therefore bail must be granted.
Summary
Subhash Bhonsle, accused of kidnapping for ransom, robbery, criminal intimidation and offences under the Arms Act, has been in judicial custody since August 2021. The prosecution alleges that he, along with co‑accused, abducted Navinchandra Bhojani, threatened him with a gun and knife, stole cash and a mobile phone and confined him at a construction site. After more than five years of detention, only 12 of the 48 witnesses listed in the charge‑sheet have been examined and the trial continues at a sluggish pace. The defence argued that the prolonged delay violates the accused’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, citing several Supreme Court precedents. The State contended that no fixed time‑limit can be imposed and that the delay is partly due to administrative factors. The Court held that the extensive delay infringes the constitutional right to speedy trial and, considering the absence of injury to the victim and the accused’s clean antecedents, granted bail with strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in the trial infringes the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21, warranting bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences charged outweighs the delay in granting bail.
- Whether the prosecution’s inability to assure a speedy disposal justifies the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3 r/w 25, 3 r/w 27
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B r/w 34, 342, 364-A, 392, 506(ii)
Subjects
- bail
- speedy trial
- Article 21
- kidnapping for ransom
- robbery
- Arms Act
- trial delay
- undertrial prisoner
- criminal conspiracy
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:2021
(1) crmab-25-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.25 OF 2026
SUBHASH BHONSLE PRESENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA THR THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR.
…
Mr. Kautuk Raikar with Mr. Digaj Bene, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Somnath Karpe, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Anand
Shirodkar with Ms. Sonali Gaonkar, Advocates for State.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 09th OCTOBER, 2026.
FINAL ORDER:-
1. The applicant/accused seeks regular bail in connection with
Crime No.25/2021 registered with Colvale Police Station for offence
punishable under Sections 364-A, 506(ii), 392, 342, 120-B r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 r/w 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information
given by Mr. Sunil Tulsidas Patel, which lead to filing of Charge-sheet
No.23/2021 dated 29.10.2021 against in all five accused persons
including applicant. The gist of prosecution case is that, accused with
their common object hatched criminal conspiracy and abducted Mr.
Navinchandra Dilipkumar Bhojani @ Patel for ransom from his shop
styled as ‘Ashirwad Traders’ situated at Madel Thivim, Bardez Goa. On
04.08.2021, at about 11.30 hrs., they put him in fear of death by
pointing a gun and a cutter knife, robbed him of his mobile phone and
(2) crmab-25-2026.odt
cash of Rs.10,000/-, dragged him into a white-coloured Creta car and
drove him to Mercurim, Agacaim, Tiswadi, Goa. On the way, they
robbed him of cash amounting to Rs.26,000/- from his possession and
thereafter confined him in a closed room at a construction site.
3. The applicant/accused no.4 alleged to have placed a knife on neck
of the victim and forcibly made him to open the cash counter and
robbed Rs. 10,000/- and mobile phone.
4. The applicant had moved Sessions Court for grant of regular bail
vide application below Exhibit’s 55, 130 and 72 in Sessions Case (ORS)
No.69/2021 which are rejected vide orders dated 09.01.2025,
24.06.2026 and 14.07.2025 respectively.
5. Mr. Kautuk Raikar, learned Advocate appearing for applicant
submits that applicant has been arrested on 05.08.2021. He has been
incarcerated for more than five years. The charge has been framed on
29.08.2022. Although trial is commenced, it is moving with snail pace.
Out of 48 witnesses cited in charge-sheet, as on date 12 witnesses have
been examined. There is no possibility of conclusion of trial in recent
future. The evidence recorded during trial so far would show bleak
possibility of conviction. The applicant/accused was independently
prosecuted for theft of mobile during course of abduction of victim. The
said mobiles were alleged to have been used to make calls to victim’s
wife for demand of ransom. The trial in that case ended in acquittal.
(3) crmab-25-2026.odt
There is no allegation of causing injury to victim or anyone else in
commission of offence. The applicant has suffered almost half of
sentence that can be imposed on the basis of evidence that prosecution
relied. Further incarceration of applicant would violate Constitutional
right under Article 21. The applicant would continue to co-operate free
flow of trial and ready to abide by any condition. Previously, applicant
had filed Bail Application No.782/2025(F) before this Court. During
hearing it was assured to this court that programme for examination of
32 witnesses is given, three of which were already examined and trial
would be concluded within shortest possible time. However, during last
six month, only 9 witnesses have been examined and 20 more witness
are yet to be examined.
6. Mr. Somnath Karpe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
invite attention of this Court to observations of Supreme Court in case
of Ranjan Dwivedi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 1 to contend
that Court has to adopt a balancing approach by taking note of possible
prejudices and disadvantages to be suffered by the accused. No outer
limit for conclusion of criminal proceedings can be fixed to conclude
trial. Although delay is one of the factors of which courts would
normally assess in determining deprivation of right to speedy trial
available to accused, Court would not enlarge benefit to accused if there
is unintentional and unavoidable delay due to administrative factors
1 (2012) 8 SCC 495.
(4) crmab-25-2026.odt
over which prosecution has no control. In present case, trial is already
commenced and 12 witnesses have been already examined. The
prosecution cannot be blamed for delay in conclusion of trial. All
possible steps are taken to ensure expeditious disposal of trial. By
inviting attention of this Court to dates/details as recorded in Roznama
of trial he endeavours to demonstrate that prosecution alone cannot be
blamed for prolonged trial.
7. In light of submissions advanced, question that requires
consideration is whether right to speedy trial of accused is infringed due
to undue delay occurred in trial.
8. The right to speedy trial was firstly recognized in case of
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 2 observing
that speedy trial is implicit in broad sweep and content of Article 21 of
Constitution of India, which has been further elaborated by Supreme
Court in catena of judgments to state that expeditious trial is integral
and essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty recognized
under Article 21 of Constitution of India. In this case apex court held as
under :-
"Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for
depriving a person of liberty cannot be"reasonable, fair
or just" unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for
determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure
which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be
regarded as "reasonable, fair or just" and it would fall
2 (1980) 1 SCC 81.
(5) crmab-25-2026.odt
foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that
speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably
expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article
21. The question which would, however, arise is as to
what would be the consequence if a person accused of an
offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived
of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long
delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under
Article 21."
Similarly the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.
A. Najeeb,3 Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021, while commenting upon
the possibility of early completion of trial and extended incarceration,
observed as under:-
"18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of
the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent
are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it
been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly
turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in
mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and
the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime
soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no
other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been
made to strike a balance between the appellant's right to
lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges
beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent's
rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have
been well protected."
9. The Delhi High Court in case of Mohamed Hakim Vs. State NCT
of Delhi)4,. in the context of grant of bail to an under-trial prisoner
urged Courts to act as doctors instead of coroners to highlight that it is
3 2021(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 652(S.C.)
4 2021 DGLS(Del.) 745: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4623
(6) crmab-25-2026.odt
crucial for a Court to recognise and be conscious of the right of an
accused to speedy trial and to prevent that right from getting defeated,
rather than wake up much too late and lament that such right has been
defeated. The Court seized of a bail must assess the pace at which the
trial is proceeding and to not wait for too long by which time the Article
21 right of an accused is already trampled upon.
10. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr5. in the context of delay in trial vis-a-vis speedy
trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme
Court has categorically held that if the State or any prosecuting agency
including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect
the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, then the State or prosecuting agency
should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. The Supreme Court held that Article 21 of the
Constitution of India applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. This
is a very significant statement.
11. Turning back to the facts of the case admittedly, applicant has
been arrested on 05.08.2021. The charge has been framed in year 2022.
The trial commenced in year 2023. The recording of evidence of
PW-2/victim commenced on 28.03.2023 and continued till 09.05.2025.
The evidence of PW-3 was recorded upto 17.11.2025. The evidence of
5 2024 DGLS(SC) 689 : (2024) 9 SCC 813
(7) crmab-25-2026.odt
PW-4 was recorded upto 17.04.2026. It is informed that as on today 12
witnesses have been examined and more than 20 witnesses are yet to be
examined. Looking to the pace of trial, it is difficult to expect that trial
would conclude within period of one year. It is informed that Court in-
charge of present trial has 15 time bound Sessions trials which are given
priority.
12. Looking to the dates/details recorded in Roznama, many factors
like non-production of accused or witnesses before Court or non-
availability of Court, apart from few adjournment sought on behalf of
accused, delayed trial. One of the reason given is workload with Court
concerned and prevailing local condition. However, fact remains that it
is obligation of State to ensure speedy trial and State includes Judiciary
as well.
13. It is true that applicant is facing trial for offences having
provision for punishment for life imprisonment. However, fact remains
that during commission of offence, no hurt or injury was caused to
victim. Although there is prima facie material depicting involvement of
applicant in commission of offence of robbery and abduction for
ransom, there are no criminal antecedents that would impede favourable
consideration of bail.
14. The applicant is behind bar for more than five years and
prosecution is not in a position to assure speedy disposal in wake of
(8) crmab-25-2026.odt
prevailing circumstances. Earlier when applicant/accused no.4 had
moved Criminal Application (Bail) No.782/2025 (F), statement of
prosecution was recorded in order dated 06.03.2026 that prosecution
intends to examine 32 witness, out of which 3 already been examined
and 25 more witnesses were assured to be examined by 04.05.2026.
The period of about 7 months is passed from statement that was made.
After lapse of period of 7 months from that date, total 12 witnesses
could be examined out of 32 proposed witnesses, which depicts sorry
state-of-affairs. In aforesaid backdrop, certainly there is violation of
Constitutional guarantee of speedy trial available to accused/applicant.
In this backdrop, case is made out for grant of bail.
15. The Criminal Application (Bail) is allowed.
i. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing PR
Bond in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lakh Only) with one
or two local sureties in the like amount.
ii. The applicant shall not leave State of Goa without
permission of the Sessions Court.
iii. The applicant shall inform his latest local address of
residence and contact numbers immediately after being
released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any,
from time to time to the prosecution as well as Sessions
Court, in writing.
(9) crmab-25-2026.odt
iv. Applicant shall attend police station within whose
jurisdiction he resides, on every Friday between 10 a.m. to 2
p.m. till conclusion of trial.
v. The applicant shall regularly attend trial and shall not
seek any adjournment on whatsoever count.
vi. The applicant shall not meet or establish contact with
the witnesses cited by prosecution till recording of evidence is
over.
vii. In case of two consecutive defaults in appearing before
trial court or breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of
applicant’s bail.
viii. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case while granting bail to the
applicant.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/October-2026
Checking your session…