Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that mere filing of multiple bail applications cannot be used as a ground to deny relief. The court, while underscoring the constitutional right to a speedy trial, granted bail to a woman accused in a child abduction case.In an order delivered by Justice MM Nerlikar on Tuesday, the court rejected the trial court’s reasoning that repeated bail pleas contributed to delays. “It can be said that the accused are exercising their statutory right,” the court observed, adding that this cannot justify continued incarceration. The petitioner was in custody since Nov 11, 2022, in connection with a case registered at Kalamna police station in Nagpur under Sections 363, 369, 370 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The eight-month-old child was allegedly abducted by a co-accused known to the victim’s family.Arguing for bail, defence counsel Mir Nagman Ali cited prolonged incarceration and delay in trial proceedings, contending that the petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was infringed. The prosecution, led by public prosecutor PC Bawankule, opposed the plea, while maintaining that delays were attributable to repeated applications filed by the accused. The public prosecutor suggested that the trial be expedited.The HC, however, found this argument untenable. Referring to established constitutional principles and Supreme Court precedents, the court noted, “If the State has no wherewithal to provide a speedy trial, it should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.” It further reiterated that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is “overarching and sacrosanct.”The court took note of the timeline of the proceedings, observing that charges were framed only in Dec 2025, more than three years after the woman’s arrest, and that there was no meaningful progress in the trial. It held that continued detention in such circumstances would be unjustified.Granting bail, the court directed the woman’s release on a personal bond of ₹25,000, subject to strict conditions. These include refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, providing residential details to the police, and attending all trial dates. The court warned that failure to comply with these conditions, including absence on two consecutive hearings, could result in cancellation of bail.# Key Takeaways From HC VerdictEmphasises right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the ConstitutionWoman granted bail after over three years in custody since Nov 2022Charges framed only in Dec 2025, indicating big trial delayCourt says filing bail pleas is exercise of statutory legal rightsCites Supreme Court: delay cannot justify denying bail in serious offencesBail granted with strict conditions including attendance and non-interferenceFailure to comply may lead to cancellation of bailRuling highlights judiciary’s focus on balancing liberty and procedural delays
