Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prakash D.Naik, J.
Ajit Bhagwan Tiwde - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Bail Application No. 995 of 2021
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Bail Application - Offences under Indian Penal Code and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Ss. 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 120-B, 427, 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 23(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, focusing on the right to speedy trial and the impact of prolonged custody on the accused's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court considered various decisions and observed that the right to speedy trial is a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and prolonged custody without trial violates this right. The court also highlighted the need to balance the rights of the individual with the interests of society and the gravity of the crime. Ultimately, the court granted bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in a series of serious offences, and the trial had been proceeding at a slow pace. The applicant had been in custody for more than 11 years, and the trial court had been directed to conclude the trial within six months, but only two witnesses were examined in the subsequent two years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had been in custody for an extended period without a speedy trial, which infringed his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant would abscond or tamper with the evidence. Considering the prolonged custody and the lack of progress in the trial, the court granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The issues before the court included the prolonged custody of the applicant, the slow pace of the trial, the right to speedy trial, and the impact of prolonged custody on the accused's fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to speedy trial is a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prolonged custody without trial violates this right, and the court must balance the rights of the individual with the interests of society and the gravity of the crime. The court also considered the impact of statutory restrictions on bail and the need to harmonize such restrictions with the constitutional guarantee of protection of life and personal liberty.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail, imposing certain conditions related to residence, travel, and attendance at the trial court.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application for bail. The applicant is arrested on 17/6/2010 in connection with C.R. No. I - 85 of 2010, registered with Rajarampuri Police Station, Dist. Kolhapur for offence punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 120-B and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC ").
2. During the pendency of investigation, the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ( for short "MCOC Act") were sought to be invoked and prior approval was accorded on 31/8/2010 for offences under Ss. 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act, 1999. Sanction was granted under Sec. 23(2) of MCOC Act, on 30/11/2010. Pursuant to the sanction order, the charge- sheet was filed against the accused.
3. Brief facts of the Prosecution 's case are as under :
"i. The Complainant Atul Patil is residing at Shahu Nagar, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur.
ii. It is alleged by the Complainant that he was aware that six months ago there was quarrel between Ajit Tiwde (present Applicant), Nitin Vetal and Avdhut Salvi. Election of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation was to be conducted in October 2010.
iii. Avdhut Salvi had influence in area of Daulat Nagar.
iv. On 4/6/2010, the Complainant, Avdhut Salvi, Mukund Palange and Javed Abdul Sayyed all residing at Shahu Nagar left from Hotel Atithi at about 11.15 hours. They were proceeding residences by Maruti Car No. MH-04 LH-607. Vehicle was driven by Mukund Palange. Avdhut Salvi was sitting next to him. Complainant and Javed Sayyed were sitting on rear seat. It is alleged by the Complainant that while their vehicle was passing through Sanmitra Housing Society, one white colour TATA Sumo vehicle came from behind and stopped in front of their car. Yogesh Nalawade, Swapnil Jadhav, Nitin Vetal, Ajit Tiwde, Govind Naidu and two unknown persons alighted from the said TATA Sumo vehicle.
v. Yogesh Nalavade was armed with Koyata, applicant and Nitin Vetal were armed with Sword. Swapnil Jadhav, Govind Naidu and two unknown persons were armed with Iron Pipes. The aforesaid persons caused damages to the vehicle and started assaulting the Complainant and others. Javed Sayyed somehow got out of the Car and ran away. He saw the assault by hiding himself behind the tree. Accused forcibly dragged the Complainant, Avdhut Salvi and Mukund out of the vehicle. Ajit Tiwde assaulted by weapon and Nitin Vetal assaulted Avdhut on his head. It is alleged that, Govind Naidu assaulted Avdhut Salvi with Iron Pipe. Swapnil Jadhav, Yogesh Nalawade, Mahesh Nalawade, Ganesh Shinde and Amar Patil assaulted complainant on his head. Mukund was assaulted with iron pipe.
vi. Police Officers recorded Statement of complainant at CPR Hospital on 5/6/2010. The said statement was treated as First Information Report (for short "FIR ") and offence was registered vide F.I.R. No.I-85 of 2010 with Rajarampuri Police Station.
vii. Complainant, Javed Sayyed, Mukund Palange and Govind Padgaonkar are eye witnesses.
viii. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed on 11/12/2010."
4. According to applicant, he had suffered cardiac arrest, while in custody. He applied for bail on medical ground before Special MCOC Court, Pune. He was admitted in Sasson Hospital. By order dtd. 22/11/2013, the Special Court directed that applicant be admitted in J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. Coronary angioplasty was carried out on him. The Special Court granted bail for three months by order dtd. 30/11/2013 for treatment. The applicant took treatment at private hospitals. He surrendered to jail on 2/3/2014. The applicant again preferred application for bail on medical ground which was rejected by order dtd. 4/12/2014. The applicant had applied for bail before this Court on medical ground viz. Bail Application No.834 of 2015 by order dtd. 29/7/2015, it was observed that, the medical report of applicant discloses that, he requires treatment for his heart ailment. The medical treatment cannot be postponed and he has to be treated at the earliest. The appl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
