The Supreme Court of India on March 16 expressed concern over prolonged delays in criminal trials in Maharashtra, describing them as “inexplicable and huge.” A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan issued notice in a bail petition and requested a personally affirmed affidavit from the Commissioner of Police, Nashik, explaining why the trial, registered in June 2019, had not progressed.
“One factor, which has seriously made the Court concerned, is the fact that repeatedly, it has been noticing inexplicable and huge delay in trial being conducted, especially by the State of Maharashtra,” the Bench observed.
Minimal Progress in Maharashtra Trial Delays Case
The Supreme Court criticised the prosecution, noting that although the FIR was registered in June 2019, the trial had examined only one witness so far. The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Nashik, to provide a detailed explanation for the delay and to clarify the role of each accused in causing it.
The Bench scheduled the next hearing for April 10, 2026.
Broader Concerns Over Maharashtra Trial Delays in Criminal Courts
The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged delays in Maharashtra, describing the situation as a “shocking state of affairs.” Hundreds of cases remain pending at the charge-framing stage, with some dating back to 2006. In one instance, an undertrial spent four years in custody without charges being framed, prompting the Court to issue directions to prevent delays due to non-production of accused persons.
Additionally, the Bench highlighted slow trials under special statutes such as the MCOCA and UAPA, recommending dedicated courts to handle these cases efficiently.
Case Background on Maharashtra Trial Delays
The bail plea arises from an incident on June 14, 2019, when the accused and co-accused allegedly entered a Muthoot Finance office in Nashik with firearms, looted gold, and shot dead an employee who resisted.
The defence pointed out delays in conducting the test identification parade after the accused’s arrest on June 25, 2019, over six years of pre-trial custody, and minimal trial progress with only one witness examined.
In response, the State opposed bail, citing firearm recovery, ballistic matches, CCTV footage, identification during the parade, a confessional statement, and the accused’s three prior criminal antecedents. The State also argued that the accused and co-accused did not cooperate, contributing to trial delays. The Bombay High Court rejected the bail application, holding that the allegations were serious and supported by direct evidence.
Appearances
For Petitioner: Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Adv.; Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR
For Respondent: Mr Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.Mr Aaditya A. Pande, AOR; Ms Sushmita Pande, Adv.Mr Adarsh Dubey, Adv.Mr Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Case No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4152/2026
Case Title: Parmendra @ Gauravsing Rajendra Sinha v. State of Maharashtra
Also Read: Supreme Court Allows Graduate Anganwadi Workers To Compete For 29% Supervisor Quota In Kerala
