IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Mohammad Khalid Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 2246 of 2024, Interim Application No. 4647 of 2024, Interim Application No. 3057 of 2024
Decided On : 08-02-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364-A, 384, 385, 386, 387 - Arms Act - Bail Application - Applicant, accused of serious offences, has been in custody for over 4 years with no trial commencement in sight - Previous bail applications rejected - Court emphasizes the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - Granting bail is justified due to prolonged incarceration and lack of direct evidence against the Applicant. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 17)
(B) Bail Jurisprudence - The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reiterated - The court must balance the rights of the accused with the seriousness of the allegations and potential for witness tampering. (Paras 7, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant, a politician, has been accused of extorting money from the first informant, a builder, under threats of violence and coercion, leading to multiple payments over several years. The first informant filed a complaint in 2020 after enduring years of intimidation. (Paras 3, 3.1-3.7)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the Applicant's prolonged detention without trial violates his right to a speedy trial, and the lack of direct evidence against him supports the decision to grant bail. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues include the Applicant's long incarceration, the absence of a trial timeline, and the implications of the serious allegations against him. (Paras 4, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable, especially in the absence of compelling evidence against the Applicant. (Paras 10, 17)
Result: Bail Application allowed with conditions. (Para 18)
JUDGMENT :
[MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]
1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Applicant, Ms. Yadav, learned APP for State and Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate for Intervenor.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking Regular Bail in connection with C.R. No.312 of 2020 registered with Bhiwandi City Police Station for offences under Section 364-A, 384, 385, 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 readwith Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. There are in all five Accused in the matter. Applicant before me is Accused No.1 and has been incarcerated since 25.09.2020 i.e. for 4 years 4 months and 14 days.
3. Briefly stated the aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by first informant Takweem @ Guttu Ajaz Khan. The first informant is engaged in construction business being run under the name Razi Constructions. In the year 2014, the first informant had undertaken redevelopment of one Rangadi Building at Bhiwandi, during which time present Applicant was the Corporator of Bhiwandi Nizampura Municipal Corporation. It is stated by the first informant that Applicant called him to his office and instructed to give him 20% of the profit towards protection money to ensure that the construction work carried out by him was not obstructed. There was an altercation and scuffle between the first informant and Applicant when he refused to pay the money.
3.1. It is stated by first informant that in January 2015 the Officers of the Municipal Corporation visited the construction site and stopped the construction work though he had requisite sanctions and approvals. The first informant learnt that the Applicant through one Javed Naeem Khan lodged a complaint in respect of the said construction work and about 15 to 20 days thereafter, Accused Nos.2 and 3 visited the construction site and told first informant that Applicant will not stall the construction work if he settles the matter with him. First informant refused to meet the Applicant and hence these two Accused once again approached the first informant and told him that they could arrange a meeting with the Applicant. Accordingly first informant met Applicant in Hotel Dariya Sagar and the first informant has alleged that Applicant demanded Rs.4,00,000/- per slab. It is stated that first informant was told that the money would reach the gangsters and in the event he fails to pay the amount, the construction would be embroiled in civil litigation and he would not be able to complete the construction. The first informant has alleged that he was scared as he had already entered into the agreements with the occupants of the building and had to complete the construction within time and therefore agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- per slab to Applicant towards protection money and paid the same.
3.2. Next it is stated by first informant that the Applicant used to organize Cricket Tournaments in his constituency and in the year 2015, Applicant compelled the first informant to pay Rs.1,75,000/- for the uniform of cricket teams and in the year 2016, he was made to purchase Hero Honda motor cycle worth Rs.60,000/- which was to be awarded as prize to the best player.
3.3. The first informant has stated that he did not lodge a complaint against the Applicant because of his political position and association with gangsters and also as he learnt that Applicant used to extort money from the builders who started new construction in Bhiwandi and used to file Petitions before the High Court through his associates to stall such constructions.
3.4. Next it is alleged that in the year 2017, Accused No.4 who was brother of present Applicant was released from jail and he came to the construction site to collect the extortion amount and when the complainant refused to pay the money, he showed his mobile having photograph of Munna Bhai Bajrangi who was stated to be a gangster and told him that he had to send the money to Munna Bhai Bajrangi and in
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable, especially in the absence of compelling evidence against the accused.
The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reaffirmed, especially when an accused has been in custody for an extended period without trial progress.
The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reinforced, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence.
The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reinforced, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The right to speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and prolonged incarceration without trial necessitates bail, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly in cases of long incarceration without trial, invoking the right to speedy justice under Article 21.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, warranting bail as the rule and refusal as the exception.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, necessitating bail for the accused.
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, and bail is the rule while jail is the exception, especially when trial has not commenced for an extended period.
The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly for under-trials with prolonged incarceration, highlighting the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
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.