A prolonged trial delay and lack of meritorious evidence can warrant bail, even for serious charges.

JUDGMENT :

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with FIR No.128/2022 dated 09/04/2022 registered with Madhyavarti Police Station, Thane City, for the offences punishable under sections 394 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the person injured succumbed to his injuries and hence section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the charge-sheet.

2. It is the story of the prosecution, based on the statement given by the son of the deceased that, the deceased was in the habit of going to the public toilet at 05.00 a.m. every day. On the fatal day i.e. 09/04/2022, at around 05.15 a.m., the deceased left home to go to the public toilet. He was carrying a mobile phone belonging to the first informant of OPPO Company-A3S. His own mobile phone was at home. Since he did not return home upto 08.30 a.m., the First informant was worried and therefore he went in search of his father. On the road leading to the toilet, he was informed by two people that around 05.15 a.m., one person walking towards the public toilet, was beaten up by two assailants on a motorcycle and was left on the road in an injured condition. The said person was taken to the hospital, where he was proclaimed as dead. Hence, the FIR was registered. Upon investigation of the matter including on the basis of the footage obtained from the CCTV cameras, the present Applicant and co-accused one Gautam Jha were arrested on 12/04/2022 at about 09.00 pm. The Applicant made an application before this Court by filing Bail Application No.3551 of 2022. By order dated 07/06/2023, since the Court was not inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail, the counsel for the Applicant withdrew his Bail Application. This Court granted liberty to the Applicant to seek bail afresh, if the trial did not commence within a period of two years from the date of that order.

3. Today, Mr. Amandeep Singh Bolle, learned counsel counsel appearing for the Applicant, is before the Court with a grievance that despite the order passed by this Court dated 07/06/2023, yet the trial has neither commenced nor concluded. He further submits that the charges are framed in September 2024. However, there is no compliance of section 294 of Cr.P.C. or any further progress in the trial. He thus prayed for the Applicant’s release on bail before this Court. Mr. Bolle further submits on merits that, this is a case of false implication. He drew my attention to the submissions of the owner of the motorcycle, who stated that he lent his motorcycle to the accused, including the Applicant and when the co-accused returned the key to him, he found that the co-accused had some injury on his hand, which was bleeding. When the said owner of the motorcycle asked for explanation, the co-accused told him that they had stabbed a person walking on the road and had seized his mobile phone. Mr. Bolle further submits that the police arrested the Applicant on the statement of the owner of the motorcycle, whereas the said owner stated that the police informed him that the Applicant and his associate were already in police custody. He thus, submits that the Applicant is wrongly roped in the offence. He lays stress on the order dated 07/06/2023 passed by this Court, wherein he was granted liberty to renew his plea for bail after two years. He thus prays that the Applicant be released on bail.

4. Ms. Manisha R. Tidke, learned APP representing the State, per contra, resists the Bail Application. She submits that there is an eyewitness, who identified two accused including the Applicant. Further she also points to the CCTV camera footage, which recorded the entire act committed by the Applicant and the co-