Bombay HC frees Pune murder accused after 6 years 3 months in jail, deciding bail on delay alone
Justice Milind N. Jadhav granted bail to Vikky Sanjay Mahadule, arrested on 26 July 2020, after the prosecutor asked the court to rule on long incarceration and leave the merits alone. The order cites a Mumbai Central Prison report of overcrowding at over five to six times capacity.
A man accused of murder in Pune has been in jail for six years and three months, and the trial is not close to ending. On 4 November 2026 the Bombay High Court released him on bail. The public prosecutor herself had asked the court to decide the plea on that ground alone.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav allowed the application of Vikky Sanjay Mahadule under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He did not examine the evidence. The order says its observations are prima facie and will not come in the way of the trial.
The case and the custody
The case is C.R. No. 760 of 2020, registered with Wanwadi Police Station, Pune, on 24 July 2020. It invokes Sections 302, 307, 120(B), 143, 144, 146, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Mahadule was arrested on 26 July 2020. The trial has begun, and 14 of the 18 cited witnesses have been examined.
Mr Satyavrat Joshi, with Mr Priyesh More, appeared for him. Ms Sangeeta E. Phad, the APP, appeared for the State.
The prosecutor steps back from the merits
The order records that the State’s prosecutor persuaded the court to decide the application on long incarceration rather than on merits. Her concern was that any observation on merits might affect the trial.
That framing shaped the whole order. The judge treated the question as one of an undertrial’s liberty under Article 21 and did not weigh the allegations against the applicant.
Prisons at five to six times capacity
The judge began with what he called the principal rule of bail: whether the accused is likely to appear for trial. He listed the other parameters as the gravity of the offence, the chance of repeating it, the risk of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence, and antecedents.
He then turned to the conditions in prisons. A report dated 12 December 2024 from the Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison, placed before the court by the public prosecutor, said the jail was overcrowded beyond its sanctioned capacity by more than five to six times.
Each barrack meant for 50 inmates held between 220 and 250, the report said. The judge added that the situation is similar in almost all jails in the State, and posed the question the order sets out to answer:
“How can Courts find a balance between the two polarities?” (para 6)
Bail as the rule, backed by authority
The order holds that where an undertrial has been in custody for a very long period, the High Court’s power to grant bail is wide and not bound by conditions. In his words, the principal rule is that:
“bail is the rule and refusal is the exception” (para 7)
The judge traced the principle to Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, the 1931 Allahabad High Court ruling in the Meerut Conspiracy case. He then reproduced long passages from Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, including its discussion of prison overcrowding, the presumption of innocence and the meaning of bail.
Other Supreme Court rulings quoted or summarised include Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Maneka Gandhi, Hussainara Khatoon, Sanjay Chandra, Shaheen Welfare Association, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Abdul Rehman Antulay. The last, he noted, treats speedy trial as the accused’s own right, covering investigation, trial and appeal.
Murder cases where long custody won bail
The judge also listed cases where courts released accused after long custody, most of them charged with murder. In the Supreme Court these included Rup Bahadur Magar (2 years 9 months), Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (4 years), Balwinder Singh (4 years), Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay (6 years) and Indrani Pratim Mukerjea (6.5 years).
He cited Bombay High Court orders granting bail in murder cases after periods from 1 year 3 months to more than 5 years, and a Delhi High Court order for a murder accused held for five and a half years.
In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh the Supreme Court said a State that cannot protect an accused’s right to a speedy trial should not oppose bail on the ground that the crime is serious. The order reproduces that passage.
Why the court granted bail
The reasoning at the end is short. The applicant has been in jail for more than six years and three months pending trial, and there is no distinct possibility of the trial concluding in the near foreseeable future.
The order does not explain why a trial with 14 of 18 witnesses already examined is unlikely to end soon. It relies on its prima facie observations and the rulings it cites, and allows the application.
Order
Mahadule is to be released immediately in connection with C.R. No. 760 of 2020 on a personal recognizance 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 once a month, on the first Sunday between 10 a.m. and 12 noon. He must attend the trial court on all dates unless exempted and take no unnecessary adjournments, failing which the prosecution may seek revocation.
He may not leave Maharashtra without the trial court’s permission, influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. He must keep the Investigating Officer informed of his address and mobile number, and any breach of the conditions will entail cancellation of bail.