Nagpur Today | Bhandara In a significant development in the widely discussed Nayeem Siraj Sheikh murder case from Bhandara district, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has granted conditional bail to two accused, Satish Chandan Dahat and Sachin Bhaurao Bhoyar, citing prolonged incarceration and substantial delay in the trial.

Justice M. M. Nerlikar passed the order on June 17, 2026, observing that both accused had remained in judicial custody for more than two years and eight months, while only two witnesses had been examined so far in the trial.

The court noted that the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution assumes great significance in such circumstances.

Gold Rate

June 22 ,2026 - Time 10.30Hrs

Gold 24 KT ₹ 1 45,800 /-

Gold 22 KT ₹ 1,35,300 /-

Silver/Kg ₹ 2,28,200/-

Platinum ₹ 88,000/-

Recommended rate for Nagpur sarafa Making charges minimum 13% and above

Background of the Case

According to the prosecution, Nayeem Siraj Sheikh had left in a Creta vehicle along with his associates on September 25, 2023, to inspect manganese samples. Around 5 p.m., their vehicle stopped near the Gobarwahi railway crossing in Tumsar taluka as the railway gate was closed.

It is alleged that several individuals arrived at the spot in a Tavera vehicle and launched an attack on Sheikh. The prosecution claims that Sheikh was dragged out of the vehicle and assaulted with sharp weapons, resulting in his death.

Following the incident, Gobarwahi Police registered Crime No. 291/2023 and launched an investigation.

Charges Against the Accused

Satish Dahat faces charges under various provisions related to murder, criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence, unlawful assembly, the Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act, and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

Sachin Bhoyar has been charged with murder, conspiracy, destruction of evidence, offences under the Arms Act, and the Maharashtra Police Act.

Defence Arguments

Senior Advocate S. K. Mishra and Advocate P. D. Sharma, appearing for the accused, argued that both applicants had been in custody since September 2023.

They pointed out that while the charge sheet was filed in February 2024 and charges were framed in December 2024, the trial had made negligible progress thereafter.

The defence highlighted that out of 73 listed witnesses, only two had been examined over nearly three years, making the possibility of an early conclusion of the trial extremely remote.

State Opposes Bail

Opposing the bail applications, Senior Advocate and Public Prosecutor D. V. Chauhan submitted that the crime was grave in nature and involved a total of 16 accused persons.

He argued that the voluminous nature of the case records naturally contributed to the delay. The prosecution also contended that certain applications and adjournment requests filed by the accused had impacted the pace of proceedings.

High Court’s Observations

After examining the report submitted by the trial court, the High Court observed that the delay could not be attributed solely to any one party.

The court noted that several factors had contributed to repeated adjournments and that all stakeholders shared some responsibility for the slow progress of the trial.

However, the court found no substantial material indicating that the present applicants were primarily responsible for delaying the proceedings.

Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, the High Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”

The court further observed that where there is extraordinary delay in trial and the accused has remained incarcerated for a prolonged period, the seriousness of the allegations alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail.

Bail Conditions

The High Court directed the release of both accused on a personal recognizance bond of ₹1 lakh each, along with two solvent sureties of the same amount.

The court imposed several conditions, including:

The accused shall not influence witnesses or persons connected with the case.
They shall not tamper with evidence.
They must furnish their residential address and mobile number to the concerned police station.
They shall not change their place of residence without informing the investigating officer.
They shall not enter the jurisdiction of Tumsar Taluka.
They must remain present before the trial court on every date of hearing.

The court also clarified that any violation of these conditions would entitle the State to seek cancellation of bail.

Significance of the Order

The ruling in the high-profile Nayeem Sheikh murder case is being viewed as a reaffirmation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The order underscores the principle that prolonged delay in judicial proceedings can become a significant factor in bail considerations, even in cases involving serious criminal charges.