Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, necessitating bail for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

P. C . :

1. Heard Mr. Gurav, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.Pethe, learned APP for State.

2. 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. 23/2017 registered with MHB Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 325,506(2) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").

3. There are two accused in the present crime. Applicant is accused No.1 whereas accused No. 2 is a lady who was the acquaintance of the Applicant and was residing with him. Case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night between 19.01.2017 & 20.01.2017 at about 1.00 a.m., both accused persons went to the informant's house and banged the door. Since he did not open, they broke the door, entered into the house and had a fierce verbal altercation leading to scuffle wherein accused No. 2 held his hands and present Applicant i.e. accused No. 1 assaulted the victim with a weapon i.e. knife that he was carrying with him. First informant is wife of the victim. Applicant was arrested on 24.01.2017 and since then he is incarceration pending trial i.e. for 8 years 1 month & 8 days. By order dated 31.01.2023 (Coram : M.S. Karnik, J.) passed in Bail Application No. 756/2022, accused No. 2 was released on bail by this Court.

4. What led to the accused persons to barge into the house of the first informant and her deceased husband i.e. victim was a precursor incident which happened on that day itself namely a few hours ago. The bed in the house of the accused had caught fire and accused persons had spotted the first informant i.e. the victim at that time near their house. Accused persons carried the impression that due to the nexus and relationship between the parties, the house of the accused was attempted to be set on fire by the victim which enraged them and resultantlty leading to the present crime in question. The mother-in-law of the first informant had approached the accused No. 1 for a painting job and there was some issue about the same which is seen from the statements recorded in the prosecution case.

5. Mr. Gurav, learned Advocate for Applicant would persuade me to consider the Application on two specific grounds namely long incarceration of the Applicant pending trial for a period of 8 years 1 month & 8 days and on the ground of parity with the co-accused. He would fairly inform the Court that charge is framed but considering the prosecution case of examining 26 prosecution witnesses, trial would be protracted thereby leading to further incarceration of the Applicant and therefore Applicant be released on bail.

6. Per contra Mr. Pethe, learned APP in his usual effervescence has persuaded the Court to consider the gravity of the crime coupled with the fact that the present crime took place after the Applicant was released in another crime after serving his sentence. He has argued that gravity of the crime considering the injury certificate and the injury inflicted on the victim is serious but he has not addressed the Court on the precursor incident which prima facie in the opinion of the Court is the incident which led to the motive leading the prosecution to establish its case against the Applicant in the trial. That apart he has placed before the Court the decision of the Supreme Court dated 13.02.2025 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 17256/2024 (Sushanta Kumar Dhalasamanta v. State of Odisha) where facts were such that crime had taken place in the year 2009 when the son and nephew of the complainant were brutally murdered but pursuant to the investigation thereafter in the crime which was registered in 2009, the name of the Petitioner therein surfaced in the year 2016 when the said Petitioner was arrested and was in custody since then. The case of Petitioner before the Supreme Court was that he had spent over 8 years in custody and therefore