Disposed¶22

Nitin Bhagwan Pathrave v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Mar 2026BA/2661/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nitin Bhagwan Pathrave v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 2661 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (R. M. Joshi, J.), decided 16 March 2026; Crime No. 459 of 2018, Manpada Police Station, Thane; Section 302 IPC; bail on ground of 7-year incarceration without trial commencement refused where counsel absences (since August 2023) and applicant's refusal to co-operate in charge framing caused delay; trial to be expedited; legal aid counsel to be appointed; fresh bail application permitted if no substantive progress within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; Trial Court directed to expedite the trial and appoint legal-aid counsel for the Applicant; liberty reserved to file a fresh bail application if there is no substantive progress in the trial within six months. ¶22

Nitin Bhagwan Pathrave vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, in custody for about seven years with the trial not commenced, is entitled to enlargement on bail solely on the ground of long incarceration.

¶10

Court's answer

Since the delay in completion of the trial was attributable in material part to the accused side (appointed counsel absent since August 2023; Applicant refused co-operation in charge-framing), the Court was not inclined to pass any order of bail on the plea of long incarceration.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Considering the long pendency of the trial since 2018, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶16

Key takeaways

The Applicant is granted liberty to file a fresh Bail Application if there is no substantive progress in the trial within six months.ratio¶19
Because the appointed counsel failed to appear before the Trial Court for a substantial period, the Trial Court is to appoint another counsel by way of legal aid to represent the Applicant in the trial.ratio¶21
If there is no progress in the trial for reasons attributable to the Applicant, he will not be entitled to take benefit of the same.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under Section 302 IPC (Crime No. 459 of 2018, Manpada Police Station, Thane) sought solely on the ground of long incarceration: Applicant in custody about 7 years with trial not commenced. The APP, relying on the Trial Court roznama, showed that the appointed counsel was repeatedly absent since August 2023 and that the Applicant had refused co-operation in framing of charges (charges since framed). Holding that delay so caused is not attributable to the prosecution, the Bombay High Court (R. M. Joshi, J., 16 March 2026) declined bail: the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to appoint fresh legal-aid counsel, with liberty to the Applicant to file a fresh bail application if there is no substantive progress within six months; delay attributable to the Applicant will not enure to his benefit.

¶1

42-BA-2661-2025.DOC

¶2

Shivgan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2661 OF 2025

¶5

Nitin Bhagwan Pathrave …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Ajinkya M Udane , for the Applicant. Mr. Rishikesh M. Pethe , APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 16^th MARCH, 2026.

¶8

PC:-

¶9

This Application for enlargement on bail of the

¶10

Applicant in connection with Crime No. 459 of 2018, registered with the Manpada Police Station, Thane for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), is only on the ground of long incarceration.

¶11

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is behind bars for a period of 7 years and till date, the trial has not commenced.

¶12

Page 1 of 3 16^th March, 2026.

¶13

42-BA-2661-2025.DOC

¶14

The learned APP opposes the said submission by relying upon the roznama of the proceeding before the Trial Court, which according to him, indicates that since August 2023, the appointed counsel on behalf of the Applicant has failed to cause appearance before the Trial Court on number of occasions. He also points out from the record that for the last three dates of hearing, the Applicant has refused to co-operate with the Trial Court in framing of charges. He however, states that now the charges have been framed.

¶15

The afore-stated facts indicate that the prosecution cannot be blamed for non-completion of trial within reasonable period of time. It cannot be permitted for the Accused to delay the trial and then to claim benefit of long incarceration. On the basis of this ground, this Court is not inclined to pass any order of bail.

¶16

This Court expects that considering the long pendency of the trial since the year 2018, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. The Applicant is granted liberty to file a

¶17

Page 2 of 3 16^th March, 2026.

¶18

42-BA-2661-2025.DOC

¶19

fresh Bail Application before this Court in case, there is no substantive progress in the trial within a period of six months from today.

¶20

Considering the fact that appointed counsel has failed to

¶21

cause appearance before the Trial Court for a substantive period, the learned Trial Court to appoint another counsel by way of legal aid to represent the Applicant in the trial.

¶22

In view of the above, the Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶23

Needless to say, that if no progress is there in the trial

¶24

for the reasons attributable to the Applicant, the Applicant would not be entitled to take benefit of the same.

¶25

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2026.03.17 10:53:53 +0530

¶27

Page 3 of 3 16^th March, 2026.

Nitin Bhagwan Pathrave v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Bhagwan Pathrave v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sagarbhai Andagale vs the State of Maharashtra

Shahid Ahmed Raza vs State of Maharashtra

Abhishek Rajendra Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Rohit Dilip Gupta vs State of Maharashtra

Samir Narayan Palvia vs the State of Maharashtra

Pankaj @Patharu Hansraj Yadav vs the State of Maharashtra