Long Incarceration Alone Not Ground For Bail Once Trial Has Commenced And Is Progressing: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that long incarceration alone does not entitle an accused to bail where the trial has already commenced and is in progress. The Court observed that precedents granting bail on the ground of delay are distinguishable where trial had not commenced, unlike the present case.

Justice Y. G. Khobragade was hearing an appeal challenging the rejection of bail by the Special Judge in a case registered for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 203 of the IPC along with provisions of the SC & ST Act. The appellant, who had been in custody since July 2019, contended that he had undergone incarceration for more than six years without a conclusion of trial and that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. Reliance was placed on judgments where bail was granted on account of prolonged pre-trial detention. The State opposed the plea, contending that the evidence collected connected the accused with the offence, that several witnesses were yet to be examined, and that delay alone could not justify bail in a serious offence.

The Court noted that though the appellant had been in custody for over six years and seven months, the trial had already commenced, and six witnesses had been examined. It also took note of the report from the trial court indicating that further time would be required for completion of evidence, including securing the attendance of witnesses, some of whom were not traceable or resided outside the State.

While considering the judgments relied upon by the appellant, the Court reiterated that lengthy incarceration without trial violates fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the Court noted that in those cases the trial had not commenced at all or there was no likelihood of commencement in the near future. It held that such precedents could not be applied to the present case, where the trial had already begun and was progressing.

“In the cases relied on behalf of the appellant, no trial was commenced, and the accused was languishing without trial for a considerable period. Therefore, to my judicious conscience the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases cited supra are not applicable to facts and circumstance of this case,” the Court observed.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the appellant was not entitled to bail merely on the ground of long incarceration. However, it granted liberty to the appellant to renew the prayer for bail if the trial was not concluded within a period of six months.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal seeking bail and directed the trial court to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis and conclude it within six months.

Case Title: Mangesh vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2025]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182

Click Here To Read/Download Order