Shubham Ganpati @ Ganesh Rathod v. The State of Maharashtra

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and final order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application No. 2678 of 2024, whereby the High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No. 262 of 2021 registered at Pimpri Road Police Station, District Pune.

3. The appellant stands accused of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, and Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, arising out of an incident dated 10.04.2021, in which the victim Akash @ Bala Shivaji Sargar sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed during treatment on 25.04.2021.

4. The prosecution case, as emerging from the records before us, is that the appellant, along with other co-accused, allegedly assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons including a sickle and knife, causing multiple injuries on vital parts of the body with the intention to kill him. The complainant is the eyewitness who stated to have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased on his head with the sickle.

5. The High Court, upon perusal of the charge-sheet, the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, the recovery of the weapon used in the offence and the presence of motive due to previous enmity, recorded a finding that there exists ample incriminating material prima facie connecting the appellant with the crime, and that the nature of the offence is serious. The High Court, accordingly, held that this was not a fit case for grant of bail.

6. It is submitted that the investigation in the case is complete and the chargesheet was filed on 08.07.2021. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 552 of 2021. However, it is not disputed that charges are yet to be framed, and the trial has not commenced till date.

7. The appellant has thus undergone more than four years of long incarceration without trial and the prosecution has submitted a list of 33 witnesses to be examined.

8. Framing of charges is that point in a trial, which transitions it from a preliminary stage to a full-fledged trial. Once charges are framed, it is a determination by a Court that a prima facie case exists warranting the case going to trial. When this determination is delayed that too without justification the process of trial itself becomes uncertain for the beginning itself is shaken by delay. From the perspective of the accused, this delay has serious consequences. The anxiety and stigma of being under investigation continues with no clarity as to the charges against such a person directly impacting the preparation of the defence as also the veracity of the witnesses the evidence in a particular case, sometimes even leading to unavailability. In another kind of cases, it also has a direct consequence on continued, long incarceration of an accused. Even when the accused is on bail, prolonged pendency can cause reputational harm and professional setbacks, apart from psychological stress. The Courts, therefore, when confronted with a question of delay in framing of charges, must consider whether the prejudice caused to the accused is real and demonstrable.

9. This delay is closely linked to the fundamental guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right may be impacted when the delay in question is attributable to the prosecution or even to systemic inefficiencies. The standard, here, once more is tangible prejudice having been caused to the accused. At the same time, it is settled that delay in framing of charges does not vitiate the proceedings.

10. We have perused the Report dated 16.09.2025 submitted by the learned District Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, filed in compliance of explaining the circumstances under which charges could not be framed in the present case despite the filing of the charge-sheet as far back as on 08.07.2021. The report reflects that from August 2021 till early 2025, the proceedings remained stalled primarily on account of repeated non-production of the accused from jail, pendency of successive bail applications, intermittent absence of co-accused and changes in the presiding officer. A reading of the report shows that there was no continuous stage where all the accused were present, duly represented, and the matter stood ready for framing of charges. While these factual aspects explain the chronology, we are of the considered view that such reasons cannot be treated as justifiable grounds for an inordinate delay of more than four years in framing of charges, particularly when the accused has remained in custody throughout.

11. It is true that under the Cr.P.C., there is no express statutory timeline prescribed for framing of charges, unlike the position under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which now mandates timelines in that regard under Sections 251 and 263, i.e., for the charges to be framed by the concerned Court either Sessions or Magistrate, as the case may be. The absence of a rigid statutory timeline under the Cr.P.C. cannot be construed as a licence for indefinite postponement of this crucial stage of the proceedings.

12. On 7th October, 2025, having perused the affidavit of the learned Registrar General of the High Court Judicature at Bombay, it was observed:-

3. The said affidavit reveals that there are at least 649 cases in which charges are yet to be framed, despite filing of the charge sheets, in certain cases way back in the year 2006, 2013, 2014 and onwards till the year 2020. The reasons assigned for delay are multiple, including, and most significantly, in almost every trial, either non-production of accused or non-appearance of the advocate, be it the prosecutor or the defense. …. …. ….

5. As such, before we issue any further directions, we direct the call for information from each District & Sessions Judge, as to what steps stand taken ensuring framing of charges as prescribed in law; including but not limited to, cancelling the bail of such of those accused who are not co-operating; whether non-cooperation on the part of the accused is a reason considered at the time of grant of bail; and action taken against the prosecuting agency wherever trial is delayed.

6. We notice that the High Court itself had issued a Circular on 19TH April, 2025 directing all concerned Judges to ensure production of prisoners either physically or virtually as per the requirements/stage of trial. Subsequently, vide Circular dated 06th June, 2025 directed all concerned Judges to ensure production of undertrial prisoners before the Courts on every date either physically or virtually and to accept the genuine requests of the jail authorities for virtual production of the prisoner, should they not be able to do so physically. Whether such directions issued by the High Court stand complied with or not and to what effect and extent, also needs to be ascertained. The affidavit filed pursuant to this order shall indicate the same.

7. The Registrar General shall also apprise the steps taken for complying with the directions issued by this Court in the case of “Hussain & Anr. vs. Union of India” (Criminal Appeal NO. 509/2017, etc.) reported in (2017) 5 SCC 702 and latest direction issued in the case of Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.(Criminal Appeal NO. 5438 of 2024).