Gaurav BidreversusState of Goa Through Public Prosecutor and other

2026:BHC-GOA:15
                                            CRMAB66 OF 2025


            Vinita

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.66 OF 2025


            GAURAV BIDRE                                       …APPLICANT.
            VS
            STATE OF GOA THROUGH
            PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
            AND OTHER                                          ...RESPONDENTS.


            Mr. Sangram Desai, Mr Rohan Dessai, Ms Janhavi Dudhwadkar,
            Ms Sanjana Desai, Ms Arya Parikar and Ms Ashwini Bandekar,
            Advocates for the Applicant/Appellant.
            Mr Shailendra G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for Respondent nos.1
            and 2.
            Mr L. Raghunandan, Advocate through VC for the Respondent no.3
            under Legal Aid.


                             CORAM:- SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.
                             DATED:- 8th January2026


            P.C.:

            1.        This is the fourth application for Bail filed by the Applicant

            before this Court, who has been charged for the offences under

            section 365, 342, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The earlier bail

            application has been rejected by this court on 6/11/2023 after

            taking into consideration the material on record in the chargesheet.

            The second bail application was filed on the ground that the trial is
                                             Page 1 of 11
                             CRMAB66 OF 2025


not progressing and no trial programme is fixed. The said

application was withdrawn vide order dated 23/4/2024 with

liberty to move the bail application before the trial court on the

aforestated grounds.

2.    Thereafter the Applicant filed an application for bail before

the trial court and even the witnesses were being examined before

the trial court. It is informed to the Court that till date 4 witnesses

have been examined.

3.    This Court vide order dated 6/11/23 has rejected the bail

application after taking into consideration the merits of the case

and therefore in the absence of any change in circumstances, as far

as merits of the case are concerned, this application cannot be

entertained on the same grounds.

4.    The second contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the

Applicant is that the Applicant is in custody since 24/6/22 and that

there is delay in conducting the trial, which infringes his

fundamental right to speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India and therefore on this count itself the

applicant deserves to be released on bail. The Ld. Counsel has

further submitted that expediting trial is not the option, but if the

trial is going to take a long time to conclude than the accused has

to be released on bail

                              Page 2 of 11
                           CRMAB66 OF 2025


5.   In support of the contention, the Ld. Counsel for the

applicant has relied upon the following authorities.

6.   In   Javed     Gulam      Nabi         Shaikh   V/s   State   of

Maharashtra and another in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of

2024, wherein it is observed as under:


            “18 Criminals are not born out but
            made. The human potential in everyone
            is good and so, never write off any
            criminal as “    beyond    redemption.
            This humanist fundamental is often
            missed when dealing with delinquents,
            juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint
            has a past and every sinner a future.
            When a crime is committed, a variety of
            factors is responsible for making the
            offender commit the crime. Those
            factors may be social and economic,
            may
            be, the result of value erosion or
            parental neglect; may be, because of the
            stress of circumstances, or the
            manifestation of temptations in a milieu
            of affluence contrasted with indigence
            or other privations.”

            “19 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 as
            enshrined under Article 21 of the
            Constitution then the State or any other
            prosecuting agency should not oppose
            the plea for bail on the ground that the
            crime committed is serious. Article 21 of

                             Page 3 of 11
                           CRMAB66 OF 2025


           the Constitution applies irrespective of
           the nature of the crime.”


           Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @

           Rabin V/s State of West Bengal in

           Criminal Appeal No. 4144 of 2024,

           wherein it is held by the Apex Court that:



           “We have repeatedly observed that while
           rejecting bail applications, the High
           Courts are passing the orders directing
           disposal of trials within a time schedule.
           Apart from the fact that such directions
           are contrary to the law laid down by the
           Constitution Bench in the case of High
           Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs.
           State of U.P. & Ors.1, such orders put
           undue pressure on the Trial Courts which
           are already flooded with a lot of work.
           Unless the factual situation is extra
           ordinary and exceptional, the High
           Courts should refrain from passing such
           orders, as held by the Constitution Bench
           in the
           aforesaid judgment.”


7.   The Ld. Counsel for the Intervener has submitted that the

offence is very serious and there is an apprehension that if the

Applicant is released on bail, he may coerce or pressurise the

witnesses and therefore prayed that the bail application be

rejected. He has further submitted that apart from the period of


                            Page 4 of 11
                            CRMAB66 OF 2025


incarceration there are other factors such as gravity of the offence,

propensity of the offender which also needs to be taken into

consideration. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that there is one

another criminal case pending against the Applicant under section

354, 354(a) and 509 IPC. In support of the contention, the Ld.

Counsel has relied upon following judgments :


      Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V/s Rajesh Ranjan alias
      Pappu Yadav and another reported in (2004) 7
      Supreme Court Cases 528, wherein it is held that:
         “14. We have already noticed from the
         arguments of learned counsel for the
         appellant that the present accused had
         earlier made seven applications for grant
         of bail which were rejected by the High
         Court and some such rejections have been
         affirmed by this Court also. It is seen from
         the records that when the fifth application
         for grant of bail was allowed by the High
         Court, the same was challenged before this
         Court and this Court accepted the said
         challenge by allowing the appeal filed by
         the Union of India and another and
         cancelled the bail granted by the High
         Court as per the order of this Court made in
         Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2001 dated 25-
         7-2001. While cancelling the said bail this
         Court specifically held that the fact that the
         present accused was in custody for more
         than one year (at that time) and the further
         fact that while rejecting an earlier
         application, the High Court had given
         liberty to renew the bail application in
         future, were not grounds envisaged under
         Section 437(1)(i) of the Code. This Court
                              Page 5 of 11
                   CRMAB66 OF 2025


also in specific terms held that the condition
laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine
qua non for granting bail even under
Section 439 of the Code. In the impugned
order it is noticed that the High Court has
given the period of incarceration already
undergone by the accused and the
unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near
future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the
accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the
accused stands charged of offences
punishable with life imprisonment or even
death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion,
the mere fact that the accused has
undergone          certain     period       of
incarceration (three years in this
case) by itself would not entitle the
accused to being enlarged on bail, nor
the fact that the trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future either by
itself or coupled with the period of
incarceration would be sufficient for
enlarging the appellant on bail when
the gravity of the offence alleged is
severe and there are allegations of
tampering with the witnesses by the accused
during the period he was on bail.”


“21. For the reasons stated above, we are of
the considered opinion that the High Court
was not justified in granting bail to the first
respondent on the ground that he has been
in custody for a period of 3 1/2 years or that
there is no likelihood of the trial being
concluded in the near future, without
taking into consideration the other factors
referred to hereinabove in this judgment of
ours.”


                    Page 6 of 11
                             CRMAB66 OF 2025


         Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav V/s
         CBI through its Director, reported in (2007) 1
         Supreme Court Cases 70, wherein it is held as under:


              “10. In our opinion none of the aforesaid
              decisions can be said to have laid down
              any absolute and unconditional rule
              about when bail should be granted by the
              Court and when it should not. It all
              depends on the facts and circumstances
              of each case and it cannot be said that
              there is any absolute rule that because a
              long period of imprisonment has expired
              bail must necessarily be granted.”



8.    The Ld. PP has submitted that this bail application should not

be entertained as earlier this court has rejected the bail application

on merits and that there is no inordinate delay in conducting the

trial. He submitted that the trial court is taking efforts to adhere to

the trial programme that has been fixed. He has relied upon the

following judgment to buttress his submissions that delay in trial

though regrettable is not by itself a ground for bail in cases

involving grave and serious offences, particularly where the

evidence links the accused to the commission of crime. The Ld. PP

has relied upon the following judgment in support of his

contention.




                              Page 7 of 11
                            CRMAB66 OF 2025


      Vishan Singh V/s State of NCT of Delhi in Bail

Application No. 2100/2025, wherein it is observed as under:

      “ 4. The right to speedy trial, though a valuable

      constitutional protection under Article 21, cannot be

      stretched to a point where it overshadows the overwhelming

      circumstances of guilt that stand against the accused at this

      stage. Delay in trial, though regrettable, is not by itself a

      ground for bail in cases involving grave and heinous

      offences, particularly where the evidence links the accused

      to the commission of the crime. It is well settled that though

      bail is the rule and jail an exception, the nature and gravity

      of the offence, the role attributed to the accused and the

      societal impact of releasing an accused charged with

      heinous offences are relevant considerations which cannot

      be overlooked.”


9.    I have heard respective counsels and have also gone through

the authorities relied upon by them.

10.   There cannot be any doubt about the authorities relied and

the propositions canvased by the applicant, that there is right to

speedy trial which is a fundamental right. However, here it is not

the case where trial has not commenced at all and that there is no


                             Page 8 of 11
                            CRMAB66 OF 2025


possibility of trial concluding in the near future. The trial court,

with other matters on the board to deal with, is making a steady

headway in the trial and has so far examined 4 witnesses and a trial

program is also on record now, which is filed with the consent of

the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, Ld. Public Prosecutor and under

the guidance of and in consultation with the presiding judge of trial

court where the trial is pending. The trial programme mentions the

schedule of dates as to when the witnesses would be examined and

how many witnesses will be examined. Therefore, now there is a

definitive trial program outlined.

11.   The Ld. Counsel for the applicant is apprehensive that there

would be an inordinate delay in concluding the trial and the trial

may not proceed as per the schedule mentioned in the trial

program. However, such presumptions need not be made now at

this stage when the trial court is taking pains to examine the

witnesses and proceed with the trial. No doubt as per the roznama,

earlier the trial was not progressing at a fast pace and there was no

clarity as to when the trial would get over. However, without going

into the details of the roznama to find out who is responsible for the

delay, now with the trial programme placed on record, there is a

fair assessment as to when the trial is likely to get over considering

the number of witnesses required to be examined.

                              Page 9 of 11
                             CRMAB66 OF 2025


12.   It also needs to be mentioned that sufficient and proper

opportunity is also required to be given to the trial court to conduct

trial in a fair manner and not to put fetters and hasten up just to

conclude the trial which can be detrimental, both to the prosecution

as well as to the defence. The offence with which the applicant is

charged is a serious offence and therefore adequate opportunity

needs to be given to the trial court as well, to conduct the trial in a

proper manner. It would have been a different case, if the trial

would not have commenced till date and no witnesses would have

been examined, which is not the case, as the prosecution has

examined 4 witnesses, albeit delay. It cannot be said that there is

an absolute rule that because there is a long period of incarceration,

bail must necessarily be granted, especially in a serious offence like

the present one with which the applicant has been charged.

13.   I have also gone through the authorities relied upon by the

respective counsels. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v

State of Maharashtra, (supra) the facts were such that the

appellant in that case was in jail for a period of 4 years and even the

charge was not framed and there were not less than 80 witnesses

which were cited by the prosecution to be examined. It was on this

backdrop that the Hon’ble Apex Court had expressed concerned as

to when the trial would be concluded. The facts of the present case

                              Page 10 of 11
                                                       CRMAB66 OF 2025


                        are different as here the trial has commenced and there is a trial

                        schedule fixed and therefore this ruling will not be of any avail to

                        the Applicant. The other judgment relied by the Ld. Counsel for the

                        Applicant can also be distinguished on the facts of the case where

                        the Apex court was inclined to grant bail as there were no

                        antecedents. The authorities relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the

                        Intervener and the Ld. Prosecutor are apt to the facts of the case.

                        14.      In view of the above, the bail application stands rejected and

                        the trial court is directed to adhere to the trial program, which has

                        been filed on record with the consent of the Ld. Counsel for the

                        Applicant, Ld. PP and the trial court. The Applicant as well the

                        Prosecution is directed to co-operate with the trial court to adhere

                        to the trial programme and if there is proper co-operation from the

                        parties there is no reason why the trial will not proceed as per the

                        trial program and conclude within stipulated period.

                        15.      Bail application is disposed of.




                                                               SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT,J.




Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK                            Page 11 of 11
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 08/01/2026 17:36:20