Bombay High Court
Rajesh Kantilal Shrishrimal (Jain) vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:77
1 74-Cr.BA-1007-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 1007 OF 2025
Rajesh Kantilal Shrishrimal (Jain)
-- VERSUS --
State of Maharashtra
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate a/b Mr. Dhruv S. Sirpurkar
(Through V.C.), Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, P.P. (Senior Advocate), a/b Ms. M.H.
Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : JANUARY 20, 2026.
Heard.
2. The present application is filed seeking
regular bail in Crime No.576/2022 for the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 469
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
registered with Police Station Ramdaspeth, District
Akola.
3. The allegations in the First Information
Report against the present applicant is of duping the
Malkapur Urban Co-operative Bank, wherein the
applicant is a customer. It is alleged that he has
transferred amount of Rs.2,02,00,000/- in various
bank accounts by misusing his account.
2 74-Cr.BA-1007-2025
4. The present application is filed by the
applicant on the ground that his right under Article
21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial has
been violated as he is in jail from 29/09/2022, i.e.,
for almost three and half years. He submits that the
record is bulky and there is no possibility of trial
being concluded in the near future, and therefore,
prays to grant bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.
vehemently opposes the application and submits that
initially the applicant has approached this Court by
filing application, however, the said application was
rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated
11/08/2023. The said order dated 11/08/2023 was
challenged in the Supreme Court by filing Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15614/2024, wherein
the said Special Leave petition was withdrawn by the
petitioner, and therefore, it was dismissed as
withdrawn. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. submits that
the order of this court passed on merits is confirmed
by the Supreme Court, however, again the applicant
has approached the trial Court by raising new ground
of "Delay in Trial". Even that application was rejected
by giving cogent reasons. It is the applicant who is
responsible for the delay. There are multiple
applications which are filed by the present applicant
which has caused delay and lastly it is submitted that
3 74-Cr.BA-1007-2025
there is no merit in the application and the same
deserve to be rejected.
6. This Court, by an order dated
13/01/2026, has called the status report from the
trial Court in order to verify the delay. Accordingly,
the status report is received. I have perused the
status report. It appears from the status report that,
admittedly, at multiple times, the present applicant
has filed an application, either for grant of bail or
challenging the order of framing charge, or by filing
application for discharge. It further appears that the
bail applications are filed from time to time either
under Section 437(6) or either under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on various grounds including medical
condition of the present applicant, however, all those
applications are rejected by the trial Court. It appears
from the status report that the charges are framed on
15/10/2025, and accordingly, the matter was kept for
evidence of prosecution witnesses. It further appears
that on 29/10/2025, learned A.P.P. filed report under
Section 294 of Cr.P.C. On 01/11/2025, learned A.P.P.
filed witness list. Further, the learned counsel for
accused has sought time to file say to report under
Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, on 07/11/2025 say was filed. Thereafter,
summons was issued to the witness. One witness, i.e.,
Chartered Accountant has started her evidence.
4 74-Cr.BA-1007-2025
Further, it appears that the learned A.P.P. moved
Pursis at Exh. 129 calling important documents
which have been seized during investigation and kept
in the Malkhana of the concerned Police Station.
Thereafter, the examination-in-chief was differed till
17/12/2025. On 17/12/2025, witness P.W.-1 filed an
application for adjournment and matter kept on
30/12/2025. On 30/12/2025, Presiding Officer was
on leave, therefore, matter kept on 13/01/2026. On
13/01/2026, the concerned Police Station moved
report having bandobast due to Municipal
Corporation Election and thereby sought time to file
documents called for. Therefore, it appears that the
matter was adjourned on one or the other pretext. It
further appears from the status report that the
charge-sheet is running into 1174 pages and is having
numerous bank documents. It further appears that
the prosecution has cited approximately 30-40
witnesses.
7. Therefore, the report shows that the
trial is not going to conclude in the near future
because of which the learned counsel appearing for
the applicant has pressed into service the judgments
of the Supreme Court:-
(i) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh VS State of
Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813;
5 74-Cr.BA-1007-2025
(ii) Sheikh Javed Iqbal VS State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2024) 8 SCC 293;
In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), it
is held in para 17 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
for bail on the ground that the crime committed
is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime."
In Sheikh Javed Iqbal (supra), it is held
in Paragraph No.32 as under:-
"32. 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 ball. But It would be
very wrong to say that under a particular
statute, ball cannot be granted. It would run
counter to the very grain of our constitutional
6 74-Cr.BA-1007-2025
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. Considering the dictum of the Supreme
Court in both these judgments, wherein several other
judgments of Supreme Court has been relied on, the
Supreme Court in unequivocal terms has ruled that
Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the
valuable right of the accused, insofar as the speedy
trial is concerned. Any infringement of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India so far as the delay in trial is
concerned, accused would be entitled for bail. There
are catena of judgments which also suggests that for
indefinite period, accused cannot be kept behind
bars. Therefore, in the present case, it could be
gathered from the status report that the applicant has
filed various applications before the trial Court, High
Court and before the Supreme Court, that by itself, is
not sufficient to deny the bail. The fact remains that
the charge-sheet in the present case is voluminous
having numerous bank documents. Further, it
appears that the prosecution is going to examine as
much as 30-40 witnesses. Under such contingency,
naturally the trial is going to take some time,
however, under such circumstances, the accused
cannot be put behind bar for indefinite period. In the
present case, the accused has undergone three and
7 74-Cr.BA-1007-2025
half years of imprisonment, therefore, in my opinion,
this is a fit case to grant bail. Hence, the following
order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed;
(ii) The applicant/accused (Rajesh Kantilal Shrishrimal) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.576/2022 registered with Ramdaspeth Police Station, District Akola, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 469 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) with two solvent sureties 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 Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency;
8 74-Cr.BA-1007-2025
(v) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail;
(vi) Pending Misc. Applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
[ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan