HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1963 OF 2025 Vikas Chandrakant Patil .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. Nitesh Nevshe a/w. Mr. Vishal Nevshe and A. D. Siddiqui, Advocates for Applicant appointed through legal aid.

 Mr. Rushikesh M. Pethe, APP for Respondent.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MAY 09, 2025 JUDGEMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nevshe, learned Advocate for Applicant appointed through legal aid and Mr. Pethe, learned APP for Respondent.

2. This is an Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.710 of 2018 dated 15.10.2018 registered with Malwani Police Station for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

3. Applicant is arrested on 15.10.2018 and is incarcerated since then. Applicant is alleged to have committed the murder of his younger brother. First Informant in this case is the mother of Applicant and the deceased – victim.

4. Without delineating any opinion on merits of the matter as can be seen from record of the case what is intriguing is the fact that for the last more than 6 years the case was listed before the Trial Court for list of witnesses which continues to prevail even today. The entire Roznama is placed before the Court.

5. Considering the facet of long incarceration, it is prima facie evident on the face of record about the status of trial in the present case and hence Application deserves immediate consideration. Commencement and conclusion of the trial in the near foreseeable future would be a distinct impossibility.

6. It is settled law that a Court while deciding a Bail Application has to keep in mind the principal rule of bail which is to ascertain whether the Accused is likely to appear before the Court for trial. There are other broad parameters also like gravity of offence, likelihood of Accused repeating the offence while on bail, whether he would influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, his antecedents are required to be considered in such cases.

7. It is seen that while dealing with Bail Applications the material available for consideration and adjudication is limited. It is brought to the notice of the Court that trials are taking perpetuity to conclude and prisons are also simultaneously overcrowded in some segments. This Court regularly deals with Bail Applications of under- trials who have been in custody for long period and is also equally aware of the conditions of our prisons. To give an example in the city of Mumbai, recently in one of the cases before me, a Report dated 12.12.2024 made by the Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison addressed to the Chief Government Pleader was placed before me by the Public Prosecutor which stated that the Mumbai Central Prison (Arthur Road Jail) is overcrowded beyond its sanctioned capacity by more than 5 – 6 times and every barrack sanctioned to house 50 inmates as on date houses anywhere between 220 – 250 inmates. Such an incongruity leads us to answer the proposition: “How can Courts find a balance between the two polarities?"

8. Argued before me is a case concerning liberty of an under- trial who has been incarcerated for 6 years, 6 months and 25 days, a situation impacting the rights of under-trials conferred by Article 21 of Constitution to speedy justice as also personal liberty. In so far as the power of High Court to grant bail is concerned, when the case is such that involves a question of personal liberty of an under-trial who is incarcerated for a very long period, the powers are wide and unfettered by conditions, the principle rule being that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, allowing accused persons to better prepare their defence.

9. In the case of Emperor Vs. H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 ALL 356, the Allahabad High Court, as far back as in th