Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1865
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Abdul Raheman Dhantiya @ Kankatto @ Jamburo – Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 517 of 2018
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Mr. S Nagamuthu, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Qurratulain, Advocate, Mr. T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Advocate, Mr. A.S. Vairavan, Adf., Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Advocate, Mr. G.R. Vikash, Advocate, Mr. Salman Charkha, Advocate, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate, Ms. Srishti Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the duration of custody and the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - Interpretation of bail provisions under the Indian Penal Code 1860 and other relevant statutes
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, convicted of multiple offenses, sought bail after being in custody for seventeen years.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the applicant considering the duration of his custody and the circumstances of the case.
Issues: Bail application based on prolonged custody and nature of offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prolonged custody and the role attributed to the applicant in the offenses before granting bail.
Final Decision: The applicant was granted bail, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Sessions Court.
ORDER
I.A. NO. 139386 OF 2022 in Crl.A. No. 522-526/2018
1. The application for bail has been filed by Faruk @ Haji Bhuriyo (Accused No 4) in Sessions Case 79 of 2009. The applicant was convicted of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 332, 434, 395, 397, 143, 147, 148, 153/A, 186 and 188 read with Sections 120B and 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 141, 150, 151 and 152 of the Indian Railways Act 1989, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.
2. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 9 October 2017.
3. The applicant has sought bail on the ground that he has been in custody since 18 November 2004 and has undergone imprisonment for about seventeen years.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the present case and the role attributed to the applicant, we direct that the applicant be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Sessions Court.
5. The application is accordingly disposed of.
