Justice Delayed, Liberty Restored: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in 2012 Pune Blast Case

In a significant judicial intervention, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to an accused in the 2012 Pune bomb blast case, citing the constitutional right to a speedy trial after the appellant languished in pre-trial detention for over 12 and a half years. Justice A.S. Gadkari, presiding over the appeal, underscored that statutory restrictions on bail do not completely override the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

A Decade Behind Bars

The case traces back to August 2012, when a series of five low-intensity explosions occurred on Jangli Maharaj Road in Pune. Investigations by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) alleged that the blasts were a retaliatory strike following the death of an operative in Yerwada Prison. The appellant, identified as the original accused No. 6, was arrested on December 26, 2012, and has remained in judicial custody ever since.

Despite the passage of over 12 years, the prosecution’s pace has been sluggish. Out of approximately 170 cited witnesses, only 27 have been examined as of August 2025, painting a bleak picture of when the trial might actually conclude.

The Arguments: Parity vs. Security

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Solkar, argued strongly for bail on the grounds of parity, pointing out that a co-accused (A-5, Munib Iqbal Memon) had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the Court in September 2024. He contended that the appellant’s role—allegedly preparing forged documents on a computer to facilitate the purchase of SIM cards—was substantially similar to that of the co-accused.

Conversely, the State’s counsel, Mr. Chate, vehemently opposed the release. He argued that the appellant’s actions provided the infrastructure for the criminal conspiracy, emphasizing that the gravity of the offenses—which include charges under the UAPA and the MCOC Act—should preclude bail.

The Legal Analysis: When Rigors "Melt Down"

Justice Gadkari’s ruling hinged on the principle that the rigors of statutory bail provisions, such as those found in Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA , are not absolute. Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) , the Court noted that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail when the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable timeframe.

"The rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence," the judgment observed.

Key Observations

The Court's decision was punctuated by several critical observations regarding the state of the proceedings:

• On the right to speedy trial: "It is by now well settled principle of law that, the right to a speedy trial of an accused is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
• On the likelihood of trial completion: "As of 11th August 2025, the prosecution has examined only 27 witnesses out of 170 witnesses it proposes to examine. It is thus clear that, the possibility of trial concluding in the near future appears to be remote."
• On the application of parity: "The role attributed to the Appellant in present crime is similar to that of co-accused Munib Memon (A-5). According to us, the principle of parity... squarely applies to the Appellant."

The Final Order

The High Court set aside the lower court’s order of September 1, 2021, and directed the appellant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000, along with solvent local sureties. Strict conditions were imposed, including monthly reporting to the ATS office and a prohibition on leaving the jurisdiction of Mumbai and Pune.

This ruling reaffirms that even in high-stakes terrorism cases, the judicial system must balance national security interests with the fundamental requirement of timely justice, preventing pre-trial detention from effectively becoming a form of indefinite punishment.