C-Apeal895-25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 895 OF 2025

Mangesh s/o Chandrakant Ransing

AGe 30 years, Occu: Labour

R/o Kavat Camp, Nighos,

Tq. Parner Dist. Ahmednagar

... Appellant

(Ori.Accused

VERSUS

1.The State of Maharashtra

Through Investigating Officer,

Parner Polie Station, Dist. Ahmednagar

2. Nirmalabai Rama Bhartiya

AGe 40 years, Occu: Labour

Wagh Wada, Near Munjoba Mandir

Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar

...Respondents

Adv. Shubham D. Jayabhar, Appointed through the Legal Aid for the

Appellant

Mr. Dande, the learned APP for the Respondent No. 1 State

Ms. Harsha Lomte, Adv. Appointed through the Legal Aid for the

Respondent No. 2, the mother of victim

CORAM :Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

RESERVED ON :06.04.2026

PRONOUNCED ON :08.04.2026

JUDGMENT:-

1. By the present Appeal under section 14-A of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989, the appellant/original accused takes exception to the

Page 1 of 15 2026:BHC-AUG:14896

C-Apeal895-25.odt

order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,

Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 259 of 2019, thereby rejected

Exh.32 an application for bail under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 395 of 2019

registered with Parner Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the

offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 203 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)

(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST Act').

2. It is the case of prosecution that, on 02.05.2019,

Bundgarden Police Station received information from Dr. Vanita, the

CEO of Sasoon Hospital, Pune about admission of victim-Smt.

Rukhmini w/o Mangesh Ransingh and Appellant in Ward No. 25

with burn injuries under MLC No. 10030/2019. The present

appellant gave story to said Medical Officer about sustaining self

burn injuries by his wife on 01.05.2019 at her parental house at

village Nigoj Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. After receipt of said

information, the Police Sub-Inspector Mr. Jayant Patil visited Ward

No. 25 and recorded statement of the present appellant as well as

victim on 02.05.2019. The appellant gave story that, prior to six

Page 2 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

month of the incident he performed inter-caste marriage with

Rukhmini Bai Rama Bhartiya and before two days of the incident his

mother-in-law had called his wife at her parental house. On next day,

he visited at his in-laws house but he was not permitted to meet his

wife. Thereafter, again on 01.05.2019, about 1.30 p.m., he visited at

his in-laws house at Nighoj with some snacks for his wife and

brother-in-law but the victim’s father (i) Rama Ramphal Bhartiya, (ii)

Shri Dillu Pandit, the victim’s maternal uncle and other two persons

poured petrol on her in person as well as on person of victim and set

them on fire. On the basis of said information, Crime No. 395/2019

was registered for the offence u/s 307 of IPC and Sec. 37 (1)(3) of

the Mumbai Police Act against Rama Ramfal Bharitya, Mama Dillu

Pandit and two other unknown persons.

3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer recorded statement of witnesses and seized articles. In the

investigation it was revealed that, the present appellant/accused

allegedly poured petrol on the person of his wife Rukhmini and set

her on fire after he visited the parental house of deceased. Dying

declaration of the victim-Rukhmini was recorded on 01.05.2019,

wherein, she made a statement that her husband i.e. appellant had

Page 3 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

entered in the house from the backside door and poured petrol from

plastic bottle on her person and set her on fire. Due to which, she

and her husband got burnt. On 05.05.2019, at about 21.30 hours,

the victim died during hospitalization, therefore, offence punishable

u/s 302 of IPC was added. It was further revealed that, the victim is

a member of Scheduled Caste, hence, offences under Sections 3(1)

(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST Act') were

added.

4. After investigation was over, on 04.09.2019, the

Investigation Officer filed charge-sheet against the Appellant/

Accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 203 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 3(1)

(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST Act'). In the

charge-sheet the I.O. has cited total 42 witnesses.

5. Mr. Shubham Jayabhar, the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant canvassed that, on 01.05.2019, the alleged incident

occurred and the victim Rukhmini, the wife of appellant died on

Page 4 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

05.05.2019 due to 69% burn injuries. As per the postmortem report,

cause of death was shown as "complication following burns". The

Investigating Officer recorded multiple statements of the victim,

however, said statements are not constant, therefore, there is every

possibility of false implication of the appellant. The appellant came

to be arrested on 27.03.2019 and he was remanded in magistrate

custody since 29.07.2019 and till date, he is incarcerated for more

than 6 years 7 months and 10 days. The Investigating Officer has

filed charge-sheet against the appellant/accused on 30.09.2019,

however, for more than six years, no trial has been concluded and

the appellant is languishing in jail without trial for long period.

Therefore, the appellant had filed application under section 439 of

Criminal Procedure Code (Section 483 of BNSS) and prayed for bail

in connection with Crime No. 395/2019 during pendency of the trial.

However, on 10.09.2025, the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar

passed the impugned order and declined to release the

appellant/accused on bail because of assurance given by Public

Prosecutor for proceeding with the trial on day to day basis and to

conclude the trial within short period but till date only 6-8 witnesses

are examined. Therefore, fundamental right of the appellant/accused

Page 5 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

for speedy trial is violated under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India, hence, prayed for enlarging the appellant on bail.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

vehemently canvassed that, the appellant is behind the bars since

23.07.2019 without further progress of trial and there are ample

contradictions in statements of witnesses as well as dying

declarations of the victim, hence, keeping the appellant/accused

behind the bar for years together is nothing but an abuse of process

of law. Therefore, prayed for releasing the accused on bail.

7. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the case of Javed

Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2025

SC (Supp.) 1949 = (2024) 9 SCC 813, wherein, in paragraph 18 and

19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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

Page 6 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

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

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

8. Per contra, the Investigating Officer has filed affidavit in

reply and strongly opposed the appeal for grant of bail. Mr. Dande,

the learned APP canvassed that during the course of investigation,

the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and seized

various articles which certainly connect the appellant accused for

committing murder of his wife victim Rukhmini by pouring petrol on

her person and setting her on fire. The I.O. collected CCTV footage

from the Petrol Pump, wherein it is confirmed that the appellant

purchased petrol. The statements of witnesses from said Petrol Pump

as well as other witnesses shows that the appellant/accused entered

in parental house of victim with bottle containing petrol and poured

petrol on person of victim and set her ablaze. The statements of all

Page 7 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

the witnesses are sufficient to hold guilty to the accused for the

offences for which the appellant is charge-sheeted. The offence under

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code provides life imprisonment or

capital punishment, therefore, merely the trial of special case no. 259

of 2019 is delayed for six years, it cannot be a substantial ground to

release the appellant/accused on bail. The prosecution is likely to

examine almost all the witnesses and ready and willing to conclude

the trial within a short period, hence, prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

9. The learned APP further canvassed that, some witnesses

are 4 to 7 years of age and if the appellant is released on bail, in that

event there is every possibility that the appellant/accused can deter

said witnesses. So also, there is every possibility that, the accused

may flee and abscond, due to which the trial may be hampered,

hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10. Mrs. Harsha Lomte, the learned counsel appointed

through the legal aid for the respondent no. 2 supported the

submissions canvassed on behalf of the prosecution. However, in

addition she submitted that, the appellant/ accused and his family

Page 8 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

members are too influential persons and if the appellant is released

on bail it is likely to endanger the life of family members of the

respondent no.2 and possibility of appellant/accused absconding can

not be ruled out and trial may be hampered for an indefinite period.

Further, there is every possibility that, the appellant and family

members may deter all the witnesses, hence, prayed for dismissal of

the appeal.

11. In the case in hand, the appellant/accused is seeking

regular bail in connection with Crime No. 395 of 2019 registered

with Parner Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences

punishable under sections 302, 307, 203 IPC and under Sections

3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act mainly on the ground

that, the trial is delayed for more than six years, due to which his

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India for speedy trial has been violated.

12. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that, the Crime

No. 395 of 2019 was registered against the appellant/accused on

03.05.2019 for the offence under sections 302, 307, 203 of the IPC

and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act. It is

Page 9 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

an admitted fact that the appellant/accused was arrested 23.07.2019

for said offences and remanded in MCR w.e.f. 29.07.2019 and since

then he is behind the bars since past 6 years 7 months and 10 days.

13. It will not be out of record to mention here that, on

30.09.2019, the Investigation Officer filed the charge-sheet against

the present appellant/accused in connection with Crime No. 395 of

2019. As per charge sheet, the prosecution cited total 42 witnesses.

The learned Special Court has framed charges against the appellant

accused on 13.03.2021.

14. On 11

th

March, 2026, this Court passed an order and

called for detailed status report and the period within which the trial

is likely to be concluded in Spl. Case No. 259 of 2019. Accordingly,

this Court received the communication dated 24.03.2026 from the

learned Special Judge through the learned Principal District and

Session Judge, Ahmednagar, wherein it is stated that, evidence of

total 6 witnesses have already been recorded till 09.01.2026 and 6

witness summons are issued but no service report was received.

Therefore, Police Inspector of Parner Police Station was directed to

submit the report in respect of service of witness summons. Again, on

Page 10 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

04.02.2026, five witness summons are issued. Despite service, the

witness Akash Nandu Koli did not appear. Further other witness Sunil

Goraksha Kadam, Kajal Rama Saroj and Riteshkumar Rama Saroj are

not found at their address as mentioned in the charge-sheet and

some two key witnesses are from State of Uttar Pradesh, hence, six

months more time is required to dispose of the trial.

15. It is not in dispute that as on today, prosecution examined

6 witnesses. I have gone through the case of Vikas Chandrakant Patil

v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 3 MhLJ(Cri) 165, herein, the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat placed reliance on the

case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, (2024) 9 SCC 813 and observed

that 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 further held

that Article 21 of the Constitution of India applies irrespective of the

Page 11 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

nature of the crime. This is a very significant statement. After

considering various case laws and the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court cited therein it is held that, lengthy incarceration

without trial violates fundamental rights of the accused under Article

21 of the Constitution of India.

16. In the case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

Anr., [SLP (Crl.) No.8523 of 2024], the Supreme Court granted bail

in a case under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC to the accused who was

behind the bars for 4 years citing unlikelihood of completion of trial

in the near future. Similarly, in the case of Roland Victor Monterio

Vs. State of Maharashtra, [Bail Application No.1981 of 2023 decided

on 11.01.2024], the Principal Seat of this Court, granted bail to the

accused on account of his long incarceration of four years for the

offence under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.

17. In the case of Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay Vs. The State

of Maharashtra, [SLP (Crl.) No.2543 of 2021 decided on

17.09.2021], in a case under Sections 302 and 396 of IPC, the

Supreme Court granted bail to the accused who had undergone 6

years of pre-trial incarceration. Similarly in the case of Indrani

Page 12 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, [SLP (Crl.)

No.1627 of 2022] the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to the

accused for the offence under section 302 IPC on the ground of pre-

trial incarceration of six and half years.

18. In the case in hand, the present appellant is languishing

in jail for 6 years 7 months and 10 days in Crime No. 395 of 2019

registered with Parner Police Station, Ahmednagar. The

Appellant/Accused is facing trial for the offences punishable u/s 302,

307, 203 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (va) of S.C. S.T. (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. Sec. 302 of IPC provides maximum

punishment of life sentence or capital punishment. The appellant is

behind the bars since last 6 years and 7 months and there is no

likelihood of completion of trial within a period of six months. In the

cases relied on behalf of the appellant, no trial was commenced and

the accused was languishing without trial for a considerable period.

Therefore, to my judicious conscience the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases cited supra are not applicable to

facts and circumstance of this case.

19. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that the

Page 13 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

appellant/accused is not entitled for bail on the ground of long

incarceration, however, the appellant/accused will have liberty to

review his prayer for bail, in case the trial is not concluded within a

period of 6 months. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

order:

ORDER

1.Cri. Appeal No. 895 of 2025 is hereby dismissed.

2.The learned Special Judge Ahmednagar/Addl. Session

Judge-2 is hereby directed to conduct the trial of Spl. Case

No. 259 of 2019 on day to day basis and shall conclude

the trial within a period of 6 months from communication

of this order after securing attendance of the prosecution

witnesses by issuing bailable as well as non-bailable

warrants.

3.The Police Inspector of Parner Police Station, Ahmednagar

shall make every endeavor to produce the witnesses before

the Trial Court on schedule of trial.

4.The learned Trial Court shall not adjourn the trial unless

bona fide and substantial grounds are set out.

Page 14 of 15

C-Apeal895-25.odt

5.The Prosecution shall produce the Accused before the

learned trial Court either personally or through the virtual

mode on schedule of the trial.

6.The learned counsel Mr. Subham D. Jayabhar and Mrs.

Harsha Lomte are appointed through the legal aid to

espouse the cause on behalf of the appellant/accused and

Respondent No.2 respectively; hence, their fees shall be

quantified as per rules and be paid by the Legal Aid Sub-

Committee, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad.

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )

JPChavan

Page 15 of 15