Four years seven months in jail, trial not begun: Bombay HC grants bail in Pune MCOCA murder
Justice Milind N. Jadhav relied on the accused's long custody, the lack of any prospect of trial ending soon, and a disputed role, in a gang-rivalry killing where the alleged gang leader is already on bail.
Abhishek Ram Gangane has been in jail for more than four years and seven months over a killing in Pune in March 2022. His trial has not started. On 4 November 2026 the Bombay High Court granted him bail.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav noted that the alleged leader of his gang is already out on bail, that the role attributed to Mr Gangane is disputed, and that there is no realistic prospect of the trial ending soon.
A turf fight in two Pune localities
Mr Gangane is Accused No. 2 in C.R. No. 81 of 2022 at Haveli Police Station, Pune. The charges are murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and related offences, along with provisions of the Arms Act and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The FIR names seven accused. On the court’s prima facie reading, the victim belonged to a rival gang, and the accused attacked him to establish supremacy in the Gosavi Vasti and Nanded Phata area because of earlier enmity.
The incident took place on 23 March 2022. The judge noted several earlier skirmishes between the two sides, each trying to assert itself and damage the other’s property.
Five at the scene, seven in the FIR
The FIR, the judge said, shows that only five persons reached the scene, carrying weapons such as a scythe and a beer bottle. Seven were named, mainly on suspicion because they belonged to the same gang.
Accused No. 6 is, on the prosecution’s case, the gang leader. The judge observed that he too has been granted bail by the court. The order also records that another accused has been enlarged on bail.
The role the prosecution assigns is in dispute
Mr Gangane’s specific role rests on eyewitness accounts, and the judge found a clear dichotomy about which of the assailants used the dangerous weapons. The order says no more on the evidence.
Mr Kuldeep U. Nikam, Advocate, appeared by video conferencing with Ms Nishi Singhvi for Mr Gangane. Ms Shilpa G. Talhar, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State. The order records no separate submissions from either side.
Prisons stretched to five or six times capacity
Justice Jadhav said bail courts work with limited material, trials take a very long time, and some prisons are overcrowded. He cited a report of 12 December 2024 from the Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison, Arthur Road, to the Chief Government Pleader.
The report said the jail holds more than five to six times its sanctioned capacity. Each barrack meant for 50 inmates houses between 220 and 250. The judge said the situation is similar in almost all jails in the State.
Article 21 and long undertrial custody
He held that when a high court is considering the liberty of an undertrial held for a very long period, its powers are wide and unfettered by conditions. The governing principle, he said, is that:
“bail is the rule and refusal is the exception” (para 10)
Mr Gangane’s custody of more than four years and seven months, the judge said, engages Article 21 and the right to speedy justice. On the facts he recorded:
“There is no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future.” (para 15)
The Supreme Court decisions he leaned on
The order reproduces a long run of authority. It includes *Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI* on bail as the rule and jail as the exception, and *Gudikanti Narasimhulu* on securing the presence of the accused.
On delay it cites *Hussainara Khatoon*, *Shaheen Welfare Association* and *Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb*. It also sets out the guidelines on speedy trial in *Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak*, which cover the whole span from investigation to retrial.
The court noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that constitutional courts may release an undertrial after long incarceration where the trial cannot end in the foreseeable future.
Shorter custody has earned bail before
The judge listed other cases in which long custody weighed in murder and similar charges. *Avinash Ashok Torane* involved a murder accused held for 1 year 3 months, with parity with a co-accused on bail.
*Sonu Parmeshwar Jha* involved 1 year 7 months, and *Santosh Ramprasad Hairijan* involved 3 years 4 months. In *Rup Bahadur Magar v. State of West Bengal*, the Supreme Court granted bail after 2 years and 9 months on robbery and attempt to murder charges.
Order
The application is allowed. Mr Gangane is to be released immediately in connection with C.R. No. 81 of 2022 on a personal recognisance bond of Rs 15,000 with one or two sureties in the same amount.
He must report to the Investigating Officer at the police station on the first Monday of each month between 10 a.m. and 12 noon until the trial starts, and then attend every hearing. He may not seek unnecessary adjournments, which would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation.
He may not leave Maharashtra without the trial court’s permission, may not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and must keep the officer informed of his address and mobile number. Any breach will lead to cancellation.
The court clarified that its observations are only for the purpose of bail and express no view on the merits. The trial is to be decided on the evidence, uninfluenced by them.