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.

JUDGMENT :

[MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]

"Day after day, year after year, imagine having no space to call your own, no choice over who to be with, what to eat, or where to go. There is threat and suspicion everywhere. Love or even a gentle human touch can be difficult to find. You are separated from family and friends..."

1. This extract in the article dated 01.05.2018 "How prison changes people, Available at https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180430-the-unexpected-ways-prison-time-changes-people" written by Dr. Christian Jarret, Editor of British Psychological Society's Research Digest published on BBC resonates when a case of an under-trial accused being in incarceration for more than 9 years pending trial comes before the Court. The present case is one such case.

2. Heard Mr. Jagtap, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Bajoria, learned APP for State.

3. Applicant - accused has filed the present Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") in connection with Crime No. 45/2016 registered with Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 397 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1960 (for short, " IPC "); Sections 4 and 25 of Indian Arms Act , 1959 and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act , 1951.

4. Applicant is at present 51 years old and he is in custody since 20.01.2016 i.e. for 9 years and 25 days. There are four accused in the crime and the other three accused have all been granted bail. Trial has commenced in 2018. As per the list of the witnesses filed by prosecution, there are 36 witnesses out of which witness action of the informant and three panch witnesses is over.

5. Mr. Jagtap would submit that he would press the present Application on two specific grounds i.e. (i) long incarceration of the Applicant and (ii) Applicant is suffering from HIV and is admittedly undergoing treatment from various institutions from the prison.

6. Ms. Bajoria, learned APP has taken instructions pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 13.02.2025. Investigating Officer is present in Court. Ms. Bajoria on instructions would submit that all endeavours shall be made by the prosecution to complete the trial within a period of three months. However she would fairly submit that though the prosecution has given list of 36-37 witnesses, prosecution would not be examining all of them and therefore considering the gravity of crime, it would be the only consideration for the Court to reject the present Application, hence the Court should consider the request made by the prosecution.

7. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Jagtap, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Bajoria, learned APP for State and with their able assistance perused the record of the case.

8. The only reason which impels me to consider the present Application is the long incarceration of the Applicant in prison since 20.01.2016. Without delineating any opinion on merits of the case, the trial has commenced from 2018 onwards but till date except the informant and three panch witnesses, witness action has not proceeded further at all. Undoubtedly the Covid-19 period would have to be taken into account in the interregnum for the delay but still justification for such long pendency of trial, long incarceration and no reasonable certainty of the trial being completed in the foreseeable future persuades me to consider the Application of the Applicant for bail.

9. It is settled law that a Court while deciding a Bail Application has to keep in mind the principal rule of bail which is to ascertain whether the Accused is likely to appear befor