Bombay High Court
Arbazkha S/O Ajharkha Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps … on 23 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4622
1 16-Cr.BA-263-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 263 OF 2026
Arbazkha S/o Ajharkha Pathan
-- VERSUS --
State of Maharashtra
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. A.C. Jaltare, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. S.Z. Haider, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : MARCH 23, 2026.
Heard.
2. The present application is filed seeking
regular bail in Crime No.87/2022 for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 395, 147, 148, 149
and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with
Sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959,
Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and
Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra
Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, registered
with Police Station Kurkheda, District Gadchiroli.
3. The crime is registered on the basis of
report lodged by Manoj Nilkant Dunedar, on an
allegation that on 28/05/2022 at about 6.30 p.m.
while he was returning towards his village Kurkheda,
on the way the fuel in his motorcycle ran out,
2 16-Cr.BA-263-2026
therefore, he was waiting for somebody to bring the
fuel. At the relevant time, he heard the noise of
quarrel between some persons near Goshala,
therefore, he went near Goshala and witnessed the
present applicant along with other co-accused
assaulting one person working in the Goshala. As he
went to intervene he was assaulted with knife and
stone by the co-accused while the applicant threw
stone on his cheek. Further, the applicant has also
caused injury to the informant with the help of wheel
disk of car. It is further alleged that the present
applicant along with others have also committed
robbery by snatching Rs.11,000/- from the pocket of
the informant. On the basis of said report, the police
have registered the crime against the present
applicant.
4. At the outset, the learned counsel
appearing for the applicant raises two grounds.
Firstly, this Court, by its order dated 16/01/2024, has
granted bail to two applicants, (i) Mukesh s/o
Bhanudas Karade in Criminal Application [B.A.]
No.255/2023 and (ii) Nikesh @ Nikku Chagan
Meshram in Criminal Application [B.A.]
No.683/2023, and accordingly, he submits that the
applicant also deserve to be granted bail on the
ground of parity. He further submits that apart from
the merits of the case, the applicant also deserves to
3 16-Cr.BA-263-2026
be granted bail on the ground of "delay in trial" as
the applicant is arrested on 02/06/2022. He submits
that, till today, even the charges are not framed and,
therefore, he submits that considering the long
incarceration, the applicant deserves to be granted
bail, as he is in jail for more than three years and
nine months.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.
concedes to this fact and submits that this Court has
granted bail to two accused persons, namely, Mukesh
s/o Bhaudas Karade and Nikesh @ Nikku Chagan
Meshram. The present applicant is also similarly
situated. The only difference is that the applicant has
caused injury on the informant with the help of wheel
disk of car, which is grievous in nature. She further
submits that Rs.11,000/- was stolen from the pocket
of the informant and there are antecedents against
the applicant. No doubt, the applicant is in jail since
02/06/2022, however, considering the serious nature
of allegations, the applicant does not deserve to be
granted bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions.
Admittedly, while granting bail to two accused
persons, Mukesh s/o Bhaudas Karade and Nikesh @
Nikku Chagan Meshram, this Court has scanned the
material in detail. It appears that the injuries
sustained by the informant are not life threatening
4 16-Cr.BA-263-2026
injuries, though it is grievous. The injured is already
discharged from the hospital. It further appears that
the role played by one of the accused, Nikesh @
Nikku Chagan Meshram, is similar to the present
applicant. The reasons which are given in those
applications while granting bail to two co-accused,
they would be applicable to the present application
also.
7. Apart from this, it is further to be noted
that the applicant is behind bars since 02/06/2022.
Therefore, even on ground of delay the applicant
deserves bail.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh VS State of Maharashtra
and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813; has in para no.17
held as under:
"17. 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."
Further in case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal VS
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 8 SCC 293; it has been
held in para no.42, by the Supreme Court as under :
5 16-Cr.BA-263-2026
"42. This Court has, time and again,
emphasized that right to life and personal
liberty enshrined Under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is overarching and
sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be
restrained from granting bail to an Accused on
account of restrictive statutory provisions in a
penal statute if it finds that the right of the
Accused-undertrial Under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India has been infringed. In that
event, such statutory restrictions would not
come in the way. Even in the case of
interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever
stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to
lean in favour of constitutionalism and the Rule
of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the
given facts of a particular case, a constitutional
court may decline to grant bail. But It would be
very wrong to say that under a particular
statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run
counter to the very grain of our constitutional
jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A.
Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three Judge
Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like
us."
Even in the recent judgment in case of
Anoop Singh .vrs. U.T. of J and K (SLP (Cri)
No.1398/2026 ) vide order dated 03/02/2026 has in
paragraph no.8 held as under :
"8. The report is extremely disturbing. The
report highlights the sorry state of affairs at the
end of the prosecuting agency. We are at pains
to note that in last 7 years, the prosecution has
been able to examine only 7 witnesses.
Prosecution still intends to examine 17 more
witnesses. We wonder who are these 17
witnesses who are yet to be examined and if
not examined, what would be the adverse effect
6 16-Cr.BA-263-2026
on the case of the prosecution. However, the
most unfortunate part of the report of the Trial
Court is that past 82 hearings, not a single
witness has been examined."
9. Considering the above exposition of law
and the fact that the applicant is behind bars since
02/06/2022 and further the charges are yet to be
framed, I am inclined to grant bail by imposing
stringent conditions. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is
allowed;
(ii) The applicant/accused (Arbazkha
S/o Ajharkha Pathan) be released on regular
bail in connection with Crime No.87/2022 for
the offence punishable under Sections 307, 395,
147, 148, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, read with Sections 4 and 25 of the Indian
Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951, and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and
3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized
Crime Act, 1999, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees)
with one solvent surety in the like amount;
(iii) The accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
7 16-Cr.BA-263-2026
of the case, as also shall not tamper with the
evidence;
(iv) The accused shall provide his
residential address and cell number to Police
Station concerned and shall not change his place
of residence without prior intimation to the
Investigating Agency;
(v) The accused shall attend each and
every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend
the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to
comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default
would entail the State to ask for cancellation of
bail or even trial Court can suo moto take
cognizance of this and cancel the bail;
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in
similar types of activites;
(vii) Pending Misc. Application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of.
[ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ]
Piyush Mahajan