Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4353
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
AMIT BORKAR, J
Arvind Ramchandra Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Bail Application No. 3328 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Keshav Chavan
For the Respondents: Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP
The court emphasized the right to expeditious trial and granted bail, considering prolonged detention and permissible comparisons with co-accused.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail Application - Applicant seeks bail for charges of sexual assault and drugging - Co-accused granted bail for similar charges - Prolonged pre-trial detention considered, balancing rights under Article 21. (Paras 2, 7, 8)
(B) Right to bail - Denial of bail based on serious allegations vs. parity with co-accused - Court emphasizes speedy trial rights and potential injustice of prolonged incarceration. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, along with co-accused, is accused of administering intoxicating substances and committing sexual offences. The co-accused were granted bail due to similar allegations.
Findings of Court:
Applicant’s role considered comparable to those granted bail; thus, release on bail is justified under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The key issue addressed was whether the applicant's role warranted denial of bail despite comparable roles of co-accused granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that detaining the applicant further would infringe upon his right to personal liberty without just cause, given the circumstances of prolonged detention and similar roles of co-accused.
Result: Bail Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of application for bail in serious offences. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail considering co-accused. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's view on balancing roles of accused and trial delays. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal basis for granting bail under prolonged detention. (Para 8) |
| 5. final decision regarding bail application. (Para 9) |
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JUNE 23, 2025 P.C.:
1. 1. This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, seeking his release on regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.1188 of 2022 registered at Santacruz Police Station. The applicant has been booked for offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 323, and
328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 20th November 2022 at around 10:00 a.m., the applicant along with co-accused allegedly approached the prosecutrix and asked her to accompany them. It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused Akshay brought a water bottle and a cold drink, and thereafter administered the said cold drink to the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has stated that she was taken to a room where other co-accused were also present. Later, co-accused Dheeraj is stated to have taken her to another place at Vile Parle, and on 21st November 2022 at around 10:30 a.m., all three accused—Akshay, Dheeraj and Nandlal (the present applicant)—allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The FIR came to be lodged on 22nd November 2022 at around 1:00 p.m. The applicant came to be arrested on 28th November 2022. The application for bail moved by the applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be rejected. Hence, the present bail application has been filed before this Court.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the co- accused Akshay and Dheeraj, against whom similar allegations of rape are made by the prosecutrix, have already been granted bail —one by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the other by the learned Sessions Court. It is submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant is on par with that of the said co-accused. Therefore, the applicant seeks benefit of the principle of parity. It is further submitted that the prosecution has cited as many as 49 witnesses, and the material witness, i.e., the prosecutrix, has already been examined before the trial court. The applicant is in custody since 28th November 2022, and considering the volume of prosecution witnesses and the pace of trial, there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. On these grounds, the learned advocate prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the bail application and submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant is more serious as compared to the other two accused who have been granted bail. It is submitted that while the other accused have only been attributed the act of sexual assault, the present applicant is alleged to have played an active role in administering an intoxicating substance to the prosecutrix by mixing it in the cold drink, and thereby facilitated the subsequent offence. Therefore, according to the learned APP, the applicant cannot claim parity. As regards the contention of delay in trial, it is submitted that although the prosecution had initially listed 46 witnesses, the actual number of witnesses to be examined may be much less and could be restricted to about 15, depending on the developments during trial. Hence, it is submitted that mere delay in trial cannot be a ground to release the applicant on bail.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the material placed on record. The prosecutrix has made serious allegations involving sexual assault and administration of intoxicating substance. The role attributed to the applicant is not identical, but comparable to the other co-accused who are now on bail. While it is alleged
