IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.
Vipul Amrutlal Patel s/o. Amrutlal Patel - Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Bail Application No. 1537 of 2021 With Interim Application No. 1653 of 2022
Decided On : 25-09-2024
Bail - Murder Conspiracy - Article 21, Section 30 Evidence Act - The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, noting the lengthy delay in proceedings and the circumstantial nature of evidence against the applicant, ultimately granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, accused of conspiracy in a murder case, was arrested and has been in custody since January 2020. The trial is ongoing with numerous witnesses yet to be examined, leading to concerns about the duration of custody without a conclusion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial was progressing slowly, with only a few witnesses examined and many more pending. The applicant's long detention without trial was deemed a violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the lengthy trial process and the nature of the evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to a speedy trial is paramount, and the circumstantial evidence presented did not warrant continued detention, especially given the applicant's prolonged custody.
Result: The applicant is granted bail with specific conditions.
ORDER :
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.
1. The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in connection with C.R.No.39 of 2018 registered with Nani Daman police station which has resulted in Sessions Case No.16 of 2018. The applicant is the accused No.12. He was arrested on 20.01.2020 and since then he is in custody. The investigation in this case is over and the charge-sheet, as well as, the supplementary charge-sheets are filed in this case. The sessions case has already commenced and as of today, the third prosecution witness is being examined by the prosecution. As per the chart given by the prosecution, they intend to examine minimum 70 witnesses on different aspects. They are the eye witnesses, pancha witnesses, the witnesses from the families of the deceased, the police witnesses, the expert witnesses, the medical officers, the telephone service providers’ officers and the investigating officers. In short, the trial is not likely to get over within a reasonable near future.
2. The prosecution case is reflected in the Affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in this application. The case pertains to the murder of Ajay Patel and Dhirendra Patel. On 01.04.2018, Ajay and Dhirendra had gone to Vapi to attend a family function and then they had gone to Silvassa. They were returning home in the evening. At about 9:00p.m., they reached near Vishal Bar and Restaurant. They were accompanied by Chhotubhai Patel who was Ajay’s relative. Chhotubhai and Dhirendra got down from their Innova car to purchase beer. Ajay was sitting in the Innova car. At that time, 5 to 6 unknown persons came in a Scorpio car, Swift Car and on one motorcycle. Suddenly, those persons opened fire at Ajay. Ajay got down from the car and ran inside Vishal bar. Seeing this, Dhirendra followed him to help him. The assailants chased both Ajay and Dhirendra. They were having firearms like rifle, country made pistol, revolver etc. The assailants indiscriminately fired at them. Ajay and Dhirendra were shot dead. After that, the assailants came out of Vishal Bar and left the place in their vehicles. Chhotubhai went inside Vishal bar and found both Ajay and Dhirendra lying in a pool of blood. In the meantime, the owner of Vishal bar had informed the police. They reached the spot and found the dead bodies. The bodies were lying in the inner room of Vishar bar. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the statement given by Chhotubhai. The articles like live rounds, 2 live 12 bore rounds, 2 empty cartridges of 9mm, 3 empty cartridges of 12 bore, 7 empty cartridge of 7.65 KF, 1 fired bullet, 1 lead of bullet and 1 bullet filled with lead were found at the spot. The panchanama of scene of offence was drawn in the presence of two panchas and these articles were seized.
3. There were CCTV cameras installed at Vishal Bar and Restaurant. The footage of the recording was checked. The incident was captured in the CCTV footage which showed faces of the assailants. But the assailants were not known to anybody and hence, were not identified by anybody including the informant and the owner of the bar. The three assailants seen in the CCTV footage were later identified as Mohamad Hasan, Rashid Murtaza and Nur Mojjam. The two others could not be traced and identified.
4. During the investigation, the Scorpio car involved in the incident was found abandoned outside the compound of Nano city, near Pramukh Sangam Society, Silvassa. Therefore, the CCTV footage from the said society was checked; which showed that the accused had left that society in a Fortuner car. The Swift car involved in the offence was recovered from the Kadaiya Industrial premises. During the investigation, it was revealed that the assailants and the other accused had proceeded towards Mumbai in that Fortuner car. Sajidali @ Salim Mangata Chaudhary, Mohammed Anish Yunus, Nur Mojjam, Rashid Murtaza, Shamsad Kamaruddin @ Samir and two unknown shooters had gone to Mumbai and then had escaped. The accused Jaypra
Baij Nath Sah Versus State of Bihar
Mahipal Versus Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and another
Raja alias Ayyappan Versus State of Tamil Nadu
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Versus State of Maharashtra and another
State (By NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, and undue delay in proceedings can justify bail even in serious offenses.
Grant of Bail - Right of under trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may be considered and protected inasmuch as they should not be compelled to serve maximum punishing.
The court determined that prolonged detention does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when substantial evidence of guilt exists, underscoring the rights to a speedy trial within serious cri....
The court ruled that the applicant, as the prime accused in serious offences, cannot be granted bail due to the risk of trial tampering and his history of absconding, despite delays in the trial proc....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges based on sufficient circumstantial evidence and confessions, emphasizing the admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act.
The court emphasized the need to balance the individual's right to personal freedom with the right of police investigation, and considered the delay in trial, lack of prima facie evidence, and absenc....
Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail was influenced by the lack of specific allegations, absence of corroborative evidence, and inconclusive electronic evidence ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.