Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ROHIT GANGASAGAR VERMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(MANISH PITALE, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent-State.
2. The applicants in these applications are accused Nos.3, 6 and 16, who have approached this Court, seeking bail in rather peculiar circumstances. It is an admitted position that the trial in the present case bearing Sessions Case No. 717 of 2011 has reached the stage of recording of statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and yet, the leaned counsel for the applicants are constrained to press the prayer for grant of bail.
3. The allegation against the accused persons is that they abducted 4 victims, took them to a particular place on a hill and brutally murdered them. Thereafter, the faces of the deceased persons were disfigured in order to destroy the evidence. Eventually, the law caught up with the accused persons and all of them were arrested. Some of the accused persons were released on bail on merits, while a large number of accused persons are still behind bars.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants in the present case, apart from making submissions on the role attributed to each of the 3 accused persons, brought to the n
Constitutional Courts must grant bail to under-trials facing prolonged incarceration, recognizing their right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
[The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial can warrant the granting of bail, especially when the prosecution has not estab....
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment establishes that prolonged pre-trial detention can infringe on the constitutional right to a speedy trial, justifying bail even under stringent laws.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that an undertrial cannot be detained beyond half of the maximum sentence without trial, warranting bail under Section 436-A ....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates release under Section 436-A of the CrPC after serving half of the maximum imprisonment period, regardless of the nature of the offence.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that an undertrial cannot be detained beyond one-half of the maximum imprisonment period without trial, leading to bail being....
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
Grant of bail – When there is embargo put in by a specific provision under a special enactment in the matter of grant of bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, power to grant bai....
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
