Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest Judgement

Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra, 2026

Supreme Court of India·6 May 2026
Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra, 2026
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

6 May 2026

Judges

Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The accused was booked under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for alleged murder.

  • An FIR was registered and the accused was in judicial custody since 01.11.2022.

  • The trial before the Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) was pending, and bail was refused by the High Court.

  • The accused approached the Supreme Court seeking bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.

  • Despite charge framing in 2024, not even a single witness had been examined.

  • The accused had already spent approximately 4 years in custody without trial progress.

Issues

  1. Whether the prolonged incarceration of an undertrial accused violates the Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?

  2. Whether bail can be granted in a serious offence like murder when trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future?

  3. Whether delay in trial proceedings and non-examination of witnesses justify enlargement on bail?

Held

  • The Supreme Court held that:

    • The Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 was violated.

    • The accused was entitled to bail due to prolonged undertrial detention.

  • The bail was granted and the impugned High Court order was set aside.

Analysis

  • The Court reaffirmed the constitutional principle that the Right to Speedy Trial is an essential component of Article 21.

  • It clarified that Seriousness of offence (even murder) is not a sole ground to deny bail when trial is indefinitely delayed.

  • The judgment strengthens the jurisprudence of undertrial rights protection.

  • Key reasoning:

    • No witness examination despite long custody

    • Uncertain timeline of trial completion

  • The Court balanced:

    • Societal interest in prosecution of crime

    • Individual liberty under Article 21

  • It reinforces the principle that incarceration without trial cannot become punishment before conviction.

  • The Supreme Court reinforced that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be sacrificed due to systemic trial delays.

  • Even in serious offences like murder, courts must ensure that undertrial detention does not become punitive in nature.

  • The judgment strengthens India’s bail jurisprudence based on delay and speedy trial principles.