Bombay High Court
Uttam @ Baba Sapan Senapati vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Kalamna, ... on 1 April, 2026
1 25 BA 341.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 341/2026
(Uttam @ Baba Sapan Senapati Vs. State of Maharashtra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. M. Jaltare, Advocate for applicant.
Ms. T. H. Udeshi, APP for non-applicant/State.
CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATED : 01/04/2026.
Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in
connection with Crime No.491/2019 registered with Police
Station Kalamna, Nagpur for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 120-B 143, 147, 148, 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act read with Section 4, 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution story are that the
informant alleged that they are a group of transgenders led
by the Applicant who earn their livelihood by singing,
dancing and collecting amounts in ritual events performed
in the society. After completion of program, the money and
food collected by everyone during the day is brought to the
house of Applicant where it is distributed among everyone.
2 25 BA 341.26
The present applicant had inquired with the group about
offerings collected since some members were not placing
the same offerings being offered to them before the
applicant. It is alleged that the informant and some
associates accepted that they were not placing the offerings
before the applicant and they were taking them home.
Therefore, as punishment they were restrained from
earning daily livelihood for seven days. The deceased -
Pravin suggested to the applicant that the informant and
associates should be penalized by imposing fine instead of
giving such harsh punishment. It is alleged that, thereafter
it was decided that the old transgenders will not give
offerings to the applicant due to which there was verbal
argument between the applicant and the deceased. It is
alleged that on 04/06/2019, when the informant and the
deceased - pravin went to the house of the applicant after
work, Pravin was assaulted by the applicant and co-
accused by knife and therefore First Information Report
("FIR") came to be lodged.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the principal ground raised by the applicant is delay in
trial. He submits that the applicant was arrested on
3 25 BA 341.26
05/06/2019. Though the charge sheet was filed on
30/08/2019, the charges are only framed on 07/08/2024.
Even thereafter there is no progress in the trial and now
eight witnesses are examined by the prosecution. There
are total 11 accused persons. He submits that two accused
persons including the present applicant are behind bars.
All others are released on bail. This Court passed the order
on 07/08/2024 in Criminal Application (BA) No.
122/2024 by rejecting the application on the ground of
delay in trial as well as on merits. He submits that much
time has passed even after that passing of that order. He
submits that considering the long incarceration that is from
05/06/2019 till today, the applicant deserves to be granted
bail only on the ground of delay in trial.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that
the other co-accused persons those who were released on
bail, are not cooperating in the trial. She submits that on
one or the other pretext the matter is being adjourned.
This Court has already considered the applicant's
application on delay in trial, wherein this Court has
declined to grant bail on the said ground. She further
submits that there are criminal antecedents against the
4 25 BA 341.26
applicant. The applicant is threatening the witnesses
during the course of trial and therefore the applicant does
not deserve to be granted bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions.
Admittedly, this Court by order dated 07/08/2024 passed
in Criminal Application No. 122/2024 rejected the bail of
the applicant on the basis of merits as well as on the
ground of delay in trial. It would be necessary to reproduce
paragraph Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 as under:-
"17. Another fact requires to be considered is,
that since arrest of the applicant and other co-
accused, there were attempts by the accused to
delay the trial either by filing applications for
discharge or by filing applications for bail. Not
only this, some of accused made attempts to hold
the trial by remaining absent. The report on
record sent by learned Sessions Judge and
certified copy of Roznama show that on every
occasion, one or other co-accused remains absent
and due to the absence of some of accused,
charge could not be framed.
18. Thus, delay in the trial is neither caused by
the prosecution nor by the court. However, the
Presiding Officer took every effort to secure
presence of accused and, thereafter, also charge
5 25 BA 341.26
could not be framed.
19. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of
Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr,
reported in AIR 2024 SC 952, while considering
the bail application under provision of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
considered "tripod test" (flight risk, influencing
witnesses. tampering with evidence) and held
that mere delay in trial pertaining to the grave
offences as involved in the instant case cannot be
used as a ground to grant bail.
20. Similar is the position in the present case
as the offence alleged against the applicant is
grave one. Insofar as the "tripod test" is
concerned, admittedly, the applicant is at a flight
risk and there is every reason to apprehend that
if he is released on bail, he would not be
available for trial. The applicant has already
made attempts as to influencing witnesses and
tampering of prosecution evidence."
7. Admittedly, this order was passed on 07/08/2024.
Thereafter, it appears that this Court has called the status
report which shows that the trial is in progress and as
many as eight witnesses are examined. The charge-sheet
shows that 31 witnesses are going to be examined by the
prosecution. The status report further shows that the
witnesses are not attending the trial. I have carefully gone
6 25 BA 341.26
through the entire status report. Principally, it speaks
about either there is fault of the prosecution or the other
co-accused persons. It appears that the Trial Court had also
asked the Police inspector, Kalamna Police Station, Nagpur
to secure the presence of all prosecution witnesses and
accordingly the Court had fixed the program on
11/12/2025, 12/12/2025 and 16/12/2025 for the
evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, it appears
that eight witnesses are examined. However again
thereafter there is no progress except issuance of summons.
It further appears that even some of the accused persons
are not attending the trial. However, it is very difficult to
say that the applicant is at fault for the delay as the
applicant is behind bars since the year 2019.
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
7 25 BA 341.26
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 :
"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."
8 25 BA 341.26
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 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."
In case of Pradeep Kumar @ Banu Vs. State of
Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.1341/2026 arising out of SLP
(Cri) No. 18775/2025 decided on 13/03/2026), has
observed in paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7 which read as
under:-
"5. Prosecution proposes to examine 23
witnesses to drive home the charges against
the appellant, but none has been examined.
Thus, the trial is likely to take some time to
conclude.
9 25 BA 341.26
6. Almost two years have passed since the
appellant was arrested without trial having
commenced and conclusion thereof
nowhere being in sight. Incarceration
without trial amounts to punishment.
7. Taking an overall view of the matter,
we are of the considered opinion that
further detention of the appellant pending
trial is not necessary and, since the appeal
deserves acceptance, the appellant may be
admitted to an order for grant of bail."
Therefore though eight witnesses are examined, one does
not know how much time the prosecution is going to take
to conclude the trial. Already the applicant is behind bars
from six years and seven months. Considering all these
factors, and the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in catena of cases, I am inclined to grant bail,
hence the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant/accused Uttam @ Baba Sapan Senapati be released on bail in connection with Crime No.491/2019 registered with Police Station Kalamna, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 120-B 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal 10 25 BA 341.26 Code, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act read with Section 4, 25 of the Indian Arms Act on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one 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 of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer.
(v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for a single date or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail.
( M. M. NERLIKAR, J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 02/04/2026 14:27:22