Javed Alias Bablu Mehtabsab Bagwan vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

Javed Alias Bablu Mehtabsab Bagwan vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, sole accused in FIR No. 0255/2022 (offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC), should be released on bail in view of the delay in conducting the trial of Sessions Case No. 6/2023.

Court's answer

The status report reveals substantial progress in the trial, in which the prosecution has already examined three witnesses (PW1-PW3).

Ratio / Principle

Since only the delay-in-trial ground was argued and the prosecution has already examined three witnesses, the Court declined to comment on the merits of the case on the basis of the charge sheet, considering that doing so may affect the outcome, and rejected the bail application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad (Rajnish R. Vyas, J.), 18.03.2026 - Bail Application No. 1076 of 2025 - REJECTED. Javed alias Bablu Mehtabsab Bagwan, sole accused in FIR No. 0255/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, preferred a second bail application solely on the ground of delay in conducting the trial of Sessions Case No. 6/2023. On the Court's order dated 29.01.2026, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur reported (dated 05.02.2026) that the charge was framed on 28.03.2024, PW1 was examined on 17.02.2025, PW2 on 27.06.2025, PW3 on 10.11.2025 and 17.11.2025, that on 09.01.2026 an adjournment was sought at the accused's behest despite the witness being present (cost imposed), that the next date was 12.02.2026 for four witnesses, and that although the chargesheet cited 35 witnesses the prosecutor would examine seven more. Finding substantial progress in the trial, and observing that the applicant was the sole accused in a Section 302 IPC case involving a knife assault on the victim's chest and head with an eye-witness to the incident, the Court declined to comment on the merits on the basis of the charge sheet lest it affect the outcome, rejected the application, and directed that the fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per the rules.

2026:BHC-AUG:11801

1 926.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1076 OF 2025

JAVED ALIAS BABLU MEHTABSAB BAGWAN

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Gade Akash D. APP for Respondent : Ms. P.V. Diggikar

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 18^TH MARCH, 2026

PER COURT :

The applicant/sole accused has preferred second bail application before this court in connection with FIR No. 0255/2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that there is a delay in conducting the trial.

This court vide its order dated 29.01.2026, has called status report of Sessions Case No. 6/2023, from the trial court. Accordingly, the report is submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur, dated 05.02.2026, in which, it is stated that the charge was framed on 28.03.2024, and PW 1 was examined on 17.02.2025, PW 2 on 27.06.2025, PW 3 on 10.11.2025 and 17.11.2025. The report further shows that on 09.01.2026, though the witness was present, an application was preferred at the behest of the accused praying for adjournment and

2 926.odt

cost was imposed. The next date, according to the report is 12.02.2026, for recording of the four witnesses. Though, the chargesheet shows that total 35 witnesses were cited but in the report, it is made clear that the concerned prosecutor has stated that he would be examining seven more witnesses.

The report thus would reveal that there is substantial progress in trial. The fact cannot be ignored that offence is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in which the present applicant is the sole accused and the accused had assaulted the victim by the knife on the chest and head. There is eye witness to the incident also.

In the aforesaid background and considering the fact that only ground which is argued is delayed in trial, I am of the opinion that since the prosecution has already examined three witnesses, commenting anything on the merit of the case on the basis of charge sheet may affect the outcome of the case. Thus, the present application is rejected. The fees of learned appointed counsel be quantified as per the rules.

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )

SPC