Over seven years in jail, one witness examined: Bombay HC bails POCSO undertrial who wrote from prison
Acting on a letter from jail, Justice Milind N. Jadhav released an accused held since June 2019, whose trial had made no progress for four years, holding that such custody violates the Article 21 right to a speedy trial and expressing no view on the merits.
An undertrial accused under the POCSO Act had been in prison for 7 years, 4 months and 23 days when his letter reached the Bombay High Court. In that time his trial had examined a single witness, and for the last four years it had not moved at all.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav granted Sajnya Lakha Pawar bail on 30 October 2026 on the ground of long incarceration alone. The court made clear it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the case.
A case listed on a letter
The court received a letter from the jail dated 17 September 2026. The petition was listed on the strength of it, and the charge-sheet papers were directed to be placed before the court.
Pawar is Accused No. 1 of two accused in a 2019 case registered in Raigad district. The charges are for kidnapping and rape under the Indian Penal Code and for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was arrested on 7 June 2019.
Ms Swati Pandey, appointed through legal aid, appeared for him. Ms Rajeshree V. Newton, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State, and Ms Priyanka Chavan was appointed through legal aid to represent the victim.
Bail is the rule, said the court
Justice Jadhav began with the principal test for bail: whether the accused is likely to appear for trial. Gravity of the offence, the risk of repetition, interference with witnesses and antecedents are the other broad factors.
He noted that trials are taking a very long time to finish while prisons are overcrowded. A report dated 12 December 2024 by the Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison, placed before the court by the Public Prosecutor, said Arthur Road Jail held more than five to six times its sanctioned capacity.
Barracks meant for 50 inmates were housing between 220 and 250, the report said. The judge recorded that the position was similar in almost all jails in the State.
Where an undertrial has been held for a very long period, the judge said, a High Court's bail powers are wide and unfettered by conditions. He traced the principle to the Allahabad High Court's 1931 ruling in Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, the Meerut Conspiracy case, which held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception.
The order relies on a line of Supreme Court decisions on Article 21 and liberty. They include Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb.
Speedy trial and the accused
Applying those principles, the judge held that there was “no possibility of the trial concluding in the near foreseeable future” (para 16). Detaining an undertrial for that long, he said, violated the fundamental right to a speedy trial flowing from Article 21.
He set out the Supreme Court's propositions in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225. The right to a speedy trial belongs to the accused and covers every stage from investigation to retrial, and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible.
The judge also cited Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813. There the Supreme Court said that where the State cannot protect an accused's right to a speedy trial, it should not oppose bail on the ground that the crime is serious.
The order lists bail granted by this court and others on incarceration far shorter than Pawar's. These include murder cases where accused had spent from 1 year 3 months to more than 5 years in custody, and a Delhi High Court murder case at five and a half years.
Poor, alone, and on legal aid
The court also took account of the grievances in his letter. It recorded that he is extremely poor with no one at all to help him, and that his case was taken up through a legal aid lawyer.
The order reproduces the Supreme Court's observation in Sandeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623. A complainant or aggrieved party has no vested right to conduct a prosecution, though they may be heard at a crucial juncture, and the Public Prosecutor stays in control in the Sessions Court.
Order
The petitioner was directed to be released immediately on a personal bond of Rs 5,000 with one or two sureties. He was allowed provisional cash bail of Rs 5,000 and must furnish sureties within four weeks of release.
He must report to the trial court on the first Monday of every month between 10 am and 12 noon, attend every date and avoid unnecessary adjournments. He must live outside the jurisdiction of the police station where the FIR was registered until the trial ends, except to attend court.
He may not leave Maharashtra without the trial court's permission. He must not influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or contact the victim in any manner, physically or electronically, and must keep the investigating officer informed of his address and mobile number.
Any breach will lead to cancellation of bail. The court said its observations were limited to bail and the trial must be decided on its own evidence.
The legal aid lawyers' fees are to be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of in those terms.