Not Entitled To Bail On Lengthy Incarceration Ground: Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Wife’s Murder
The Court directed day-to-day trial completion within six months while prioritising judicial progress over lengthy pre-trial detention.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, refused to grant bail to a man accused of murdering his wife observing that he is not entitled to bail solely on the ground of lengthy pre-trial incarceration.
The Court noted that the principles regarding long-term detention without trial must be balanced against the specific facts of a case, particularly when the prosecution has already examined several witnesses and is committed to concluding proceedings expeditiously. However, to protect the appellant's constitutional rights, the Bench issued a mandatory directive to the trial court to conduct the proceedings on a day-to-day basis.
Justice Y. G. Khobragade observed, “…I am of the view that the 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…”.
Advocate Shubham D. Jayabhar appeared for the appellant and Advocate Harsha Lomte appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution's case originated from an incident on May 1, 2019, where the appellant, allegedly entered the parental home of his wife, and set her on fire by pouring petrol from a plastic bottle.
Though the appellant initially claimed that his in-laws had set both him and his wife ablaze, the victim’s dying declaration named him as the assailant. His wife later succumbed to her injuries during hospitalisation, leading to the addition of murder charges under IPC and further charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appellant challenged an order dated September 10, 2025, passed by the Special Judge, Ahmednagar, which had rejected his bail application under Section 483 BNSS. The appellant contended that his incarceration for six years, seven months, and ten days without a concluded trial constituted a gross violation of his fundamental rights. He argued that multiple dying declarations were inconsistent and that the trial had seen minimal progress despite earlier assurances of a speedy resolution.
The Court, in the present case noted that the trial had already seen the examination of six witnesses, and the trial court had provided a status report indicating that six additional months would be sufficient to dispose of the matter. Consequently, it found the cited precedents inapplicable to the current stage of these proceedings.
On noting the cases referred to by the appellant, the Bench observed, “…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”.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal but directed the Special Judge, Ahmednagar, to conclude the trial within six months.
Cause Title: Mangesh v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:14896)
Appearances:
Appellant: Shubham D. Jayabhar, Advocate.
Respondents: Dande, APP, Harsha Lomte, Advocate.