Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Vivekanand Sudhir Pise @ Vicky - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 1247 of 2025
Decided on : 28-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 342, 364, 395, 511 r/w 120B - Bail application filed by accused persons seeking regular bail after 13 years of incarceration pending trial - Court noted the gravity of the crime but emphasized the prolonged detention and lack of trial progress. (Paras 2, 8, 28)
(B) Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution - Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to speedy justice - The court highlighted the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in the context of prolonged detention. (Paras 11, 16)
(C) Conditions for Bail - Bail granted subject to conditions including reporting to the Investigating Officer, attending trial, and not influencing witnesses. (Paras 28)
Facts of the case:
Applicants have been in custody for over 13 years, with no indication of trial completion in the near future. The gravity of the crime was acknowledged, but the court ruled that prolonged incarceration without trial is unjust.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the right to a speedy trial was prima facie violated and granted bail to the applicants.
Issues: Whether the applicants should be granted bail considering the lengthy incarceration and the nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prolonged detention of the applicants without trial infringes upon their right to speedy justice as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Result: Bail Application allowed.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Ganapthy, learned APP for State.
2. Present Application has been filed by Applicants who are arraigned as accused Nos. 14 and 15 for seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, "BNSS") in connection with Crime No. 129 of 2011 registered with Kurar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 342, 364, 395 , 511 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, " IPC "). Both Applicants are incarcerated in prison for the past more than 13 years 7 months and 11 days. Application is filed on 17.03.2025. Considering the long incarceration, Application is taken up for hearing.
3. Applicant No.1 - Accused No.14 was arrested on was arrested on 09.08.2011 whereas Applicant No. 2 - Accused No.15 was arrested on 17.08.2011. There is no doubt that crime in the present case is a very serious and heinous crime which took place on 05.06.2011. Initially FIR was lodged against 6 to 7 unknown persons on 05.06.2011. There has been several orders passed by the Court in the recent past and considering the gravity of the crime accused persons involved in the crime were denied bail by the Court. The last order of the Supreme Court dated 02.01.2024 is appended at page No. 236 of the Application rejecting Special Leave to Appeal Petition filed by Applicant before me. Though no reasons are given in the said order but the learned Prosecutor had persuaded the Court to consider order of rejection dated 12.09.2023 of this Court appended at page No.229 of the previous Bail Application and would persuade the Court to prima facie also consider the distinction in the role of present Applicants and allow prosecution to complete the trial and resultantly reject the present Bail Application.
4. Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate for Applicants would persuade the Court to consider long incarceration of the Applicants pending trial. As an Officer of the Court he would also endorse the fact that as per prosecution case the crime appears to be heinous but against that he would draw and analyse from various orders passed by this Court especially 8 recent orders granting bail to the other co- accsued persons in the crime pursuant to passing of the Supreme Court order dated 02.01.2024 while rejecting the Special Leave Petition to Appeal of the present Applicants.
4.1. He would submit that prior thereto the Supreme Court by order dated 13.04.2023 appended at page No.219 of the Application had specifically directed completion of the trial within a period of three months from April, 2023. He would submit that the trial Court has stayed the trial in view of Application filed by Accused No.1. He would therefore submit that trial is stalled and it would never be completed in the near foreseeable future.
4.2. On the issue of parity he would persuade the Court to consider the order dated 07.03.2025 appended at page No.270 of the Application passed by this Court in the case of Accused No.8 enlarging him on bail and would persuade the Court to consider that role of Applicants is identical and therefore on parity they deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4.3. That apart he would also submit that Applicant No.2 is suffering from HIV and in that view of the matter adhering to the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act , 2017, the Court should consider the same and enlarge said Applicant on bail. For immediate reference Section 34(2) of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act , 2017 is reproduced below:-
“34. …
...
2. In any legal proceeding concerning or relating to an HIV-positive person, the court shall take up and dispose of the proceeding on priority basis.”
4.4. He would submit that invocation of the the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acqui
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy justice under Article 21, necessitating bail despite the gravity of the charges.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, necessitating bail for the accused.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, warranting bail as the rule and refusal as the exception.
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.
The court emphasizes that prolonged incarceration violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, establishing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
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.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right.
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.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to a speedy trial, necessitating bail when delays are not caused by the accused.
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
