Bombay High Court
Pukhraj Rajmal Bora vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 8 May, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:21889
APPLN-1101-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1101 OF 2026
PUKHRAJ RAJMAL BORA
Age: 68 years, Occu: Retired,
R/o: Flat No.----, 180 Greens,
Opposite Kamalnayan Bajaj Hospital,
Beed Bypass, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ...Applicant
VERSUS
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Through Police station officer,
Dhule City Police station, Dhule
2. MADHUKAR MADHAVRAO PATIL
Age: Major, Occu: Retired,
R/o: C/o Dhule City Police Station, Dhule ...Respondents
***
• Mr. S. S. Bora, Advocate for the Petitioner
• Mr. A. B. Girase, PP for the Respondent No.1/State
***
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J
RESERVED ON : APRIL 30, 2026
RESERVED ON : MAY 08, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Application is filed with following prayer clauses B &
C:
b. The entire criminal proceedings in pursuance of the First
Information Report dated 22.11.1993 bearing CR
No.480/1993 registered with Dhule City Police Station, Dhule
so also the entire charge sheet for offences punishable U/sec.
143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 332, 351, 353, 427 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 68/140 Of Maharashtra Police Act, may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
c. The Order of issuance of process dated 15-02-1994 passed
PAGE 1 OF 8
APPLN-1101-2026.odtby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule in Regular
Criminal Case no. 66/1994, for offences punishable U/sec.
143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 332, 351, 353, 427 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 68/140 Of Maharashtra Police Act against
the present applicant, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
2. The investigation was set in motion on basis of report given by
Respondent No. 2 alleging that on 22.11.1993, a public protest/public
condemnation was arranged on account of death of a tribal person from village
Chinchkheda in pursuance to Narmada Bachao Andolan led by Smt. Medha
Patkar. The police authorities intercepted procession by installing barricades.
They requested protesters/ delegates to refrain from their activities, instead send a
delegation to Collector for discussion. There was scuffle amongst protesters and
police officers. Some of them had suffered injuries. Eventually, FIR came to be
lodged against as many as 175 protesters for offences punishable under Sections
143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324, 332, 353, 427 of Indian Penal Code & Section
60/140 of Maharashtra Police Act.
3. The Applicant is named as one of accused, being participant of
public protest. In deference to registration of FIR, Applicant had approached
Sessions Court vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 699 of 1993 for grant of
pre-arrest bail. On 11th January 1994, application was allowed thereby extending
protection as prayed. Since then, Applicant was never called by investigating
machinery. No attempt was made to arrest him or he was never directed to
furnish bail bond. Till year 2025, he never received summons from Court.
PAGE 2 OF 8
APPLN-1101-2026.odt
Recently, Applicant received information from Mr. Hemant Madane that he is
implicated as one of accused in the charge sheet no. 32 of 1994, which was
submitted in Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in year 1994. The Applicant
came to know that learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrant against
him. Immediately, he approached to Court seeking cancellation of non-bailable
warrant and furnished bail. On 12th January 2026, Magistrate committed case to
Sessions Court at Dhule, which is registered as Sessions Case No. 30 of 2026.
4. In this backdrop applicant seeks quashment of FIR, charge sheet
and proceedings in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2026, being violative of right to
speedy trial recognized and guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
5. Mr. Bora, learned Advocate appearing for Applicant, took this
Court through charge sheet and documents appended thereto and submits that
although FIR is registered in year 1993 and charge sheet is submitted in year
1994, till 2025, no effective steps were taken by prosecution. After 33 long years,
order of committal is passed. He would further submit that Applicant was
practicing advocate at Dhule and regularly attended Court proceedings till he
joined judicial services in the year 2000. He discharged his services in public
domain while presiding over prestigious judicial assignments. However, till year
2025, he was never served with summons. He would further submit that for no
PAGE 3 OF 8
APPLN-1101-2026.odt
fault on part of Applicant, for 33 long years, criminal prosecution was kept in
dormant condition. The right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecution is an
inalienable right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Such right is not
restricted to actual criminal proceedings in Court, but also includes within its
sweep all stages from very inception till its conclusion. He would submit that
even otherwise, except statement in FIR that Applicant was one of leader of
public protest, no attributions of overt-act are discernible against him either from
contents of FIR or statement of witnesses. In support of his contentions, he relied
upon observation of Supreme Court in case of Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors
vs. R. S. Nayak and Ors, AIR 1992 SC 1701, Hussainara Khatoon and Ors vs.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1360 , Lokesh
Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 11 SCC 130 and Robert
Lalchungnunga Chongthu vs. State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 1339.
6. Per contra, Mr. Girase, learned Public Prosecutor, submits that
Applicant is named in FIR. The process is delayed because securing presence of
large number of accused persons was a difficult task. The prosecution cannot be
blamed for said delay. However, learned PP graciously concedes that Applicant
was a practicing Advocate at Dhule. He rendered judicial services in public
domain and there is no fault on his part that led to delay in criminal prosecution.
7. In light of aforesaid factual background, it is apposite to refer to
certain propositions/guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
PAGE 4 OF 8
APPLN-1101-2026.odt
Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors (supra), which reads thus:
54. In view of the above discussion, the following propositions
emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We must forewarn that
these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all
situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard and fast rules.
These propositions are:
1. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21
of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried
speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused.
The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it
serves the societal interest also, does not make it any-the-
less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all
concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is
determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances.
2. Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21
encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.
That is how, this Court has understood this right and there
is no reason to take a restricted view.
3. The concerns underlying the Right to speedy trial from
the point of view of the accused are:
(a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention
should be as short as possible. In other words, the
accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or
unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction;
(b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his
vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged
investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and
(c) undue delay may well result in impairment of the
ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on
account of death, disappearance or non-availability of
witnesses or otherwise.
It can be gathered from aforesaid guidelines that Article 21 of
Constitution of India not only creates right in accused to be tried speedily, but
PAGE 5 OF 8
APPLN-1101-2026.odt
such right subserves public and societal interest. The Article 21 encompasses all
stages of investigation, inquiry, trial and not restricted to trial before Court. The
Court observes that delay results into worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to
vocation and even peace. It results impairing of ability to defend himself. The
aforesaid exposition of law has been reiterated by Supreme Court of India in
numerous cases. In case of Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC
355, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 24 as under:
24. It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in
all criminal persecutions (sic prosecutions) is an inalienable
right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is
applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also
includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as
well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal
prosecutions and is not confined to any particular category of
cases. In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to
have been infringed, the court has to perform the balancing act
upon taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances,
enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the
right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case.”
8. In light of legal position that emerges from a series of judgments
referred above, if prosecution against Applicant is permitted after 33 years of
registration of FIR, particularly when he was a practicing Advocate at Sessions
Court at Dhule and then efficiently served judiciary till he demited office from
constitutional post, it would lead to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Bora,
defending a trial after 33 long years would result in impairing the ability of
Applicant-Accused to defend himself.
PAGE 6 OF 8
APPLN-1101-2026.odt
9. Even on factual backdrop, there appears no case against Applicant
so as to permit prosecution. FIR simply states that Applicant was one of leaders
in protest arranged by Narmada Bachao Andolan Association. However,
participation of applicant in protest/march or any scuffle with police officer or
any sort of violation of public order is not discernible from record. The charge
sheet contains statement of witnesses, however, Applicant is not named for any
overt-act or even participation in so-called unlawful assembly that turned violent
causing injuries to police officers.
10. There is absolutely no explanation from prosecution for inordinate
delay caused in taking necessary steps for speedy trial. Issue process order appears
to have been passed on 15th February 1994. There is nothing to show that
Applicant was served with summons at any point of time although he was
regularly attending court as an advocate and then served judiciary. The committal
order appears to have been passed on 12th January 2026. The police could not
secure attendance of accused numbers 1 to 172 and 174 and 175. The Applicant
was only accused who was present before Court when committal order was
passed. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that applicant was anyway
responsible or contributed to cause delay in committal of case. It is primarily for
prosecution to justify and explain delay, but no satisfactory explanation is coming
forward to justify inordinate delay of 33 years in taking steps for committal of
case to sessions case. The applicant can not be denied fundamental right and
PAGE 7 OF 8
APPLN-1101-2026.odt
made to face trial at this stage because of failure of prosecuting agencies and
executive to act and turning blind eye at securing expeditious and speedy trial. In
this backdrop, this Court finds that this is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers
to secure ends of justice coupled with constitutional right of Applicant
guaranteed under Article 21.
11. In result, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
B & C.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 8 OF 8
