Court’s Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed the bail application of the appellant, who was involved in a conspiracy to commit murder. The court held that the appellant’s role in hatching and implementing the conspiracy was significant, as evidenced by circumstantial and material facts. The appellant was denied bail, but the court noted that if there is no substantial progress in the trial within one year, the appellant may apply for bail again, and it will be considered on merits.
Facts: The appellant was accused of conspiring to murder Sanjay, with whom he was a business partner. The incident took place on February 20, 2022. The appellant and co-conspirators were involved in orchestrating the murder of Sanjay, with the crime occurring on the terrace of a building in Pune. The appellant was seen on CCTV footage paying the bill at a restaurant where the group had gathered before the murder, and his presence at the scene was confirmed by witnesses.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the appellant, being one of the conspirators, was entitled to bail, especially in light of some co-accused being granted bail previously.
Petitioner’s Arguments: The appellant argued that there were several inconsistencies in the evidence, including discrepancies in witness statements under different sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that more than six months had passed since the earlier withdrawal of the bail application and that the trial had yet to begin. The appellant also pointed out that co-accused had been granted bail.
Respondent’s Arguments: The prosecution opposed the bail application, emphasizing the serious nature of the offenses and the appellant’s active involvement in the conspiracy. They argued that the appellant was not merely a conspirator but played a critical role in implementing the plan, including his actions at the restaurant and his connection to the events leading to the murder.
Analysis of the Law: The court considered the appellant’s involvement under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and relevant sections of the Arms Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Despite the time elapsed since the initial bail application, the court maintained that the gravity of the offense and the appellant’s role warranted denial of bail.
Precedent Analysis: The court referred to earlier cases where co-accused were granted bail but distinguished the appellant’s case due to the weight of evidence against him. The court emphasized that bail could not be granted automatically merely because of the lapse of time or the granting of bail to co-accused, especially given the appellant’s substantial involvement.
Court’s Reasoning: The court reasoned that the appellant’s role was not only as a conspirator but also as an active participant in the implementation of the conspiracy to murder Sanjay. The court gave weight to the circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage and witness statements. The involvement of the appellant from the beginning of the conspiracy until its execution was clearly established, leading the court to conclude that bail could not be granted at this stage.
Conclusion: The appeal for bail was dismissed, with the court ruling that the appellant’s involvement in the conspiracy was evident and significant. However, the court allowed for the possibility of a future bail application if there is no substantial progress in the trial within one year.
Implications: The case underscores the court’s cautious approach when granting bail in cases involving serious offenses like conspiracy to murder. The decision reflects the court’s emphasis on the gravity of the crime and the substantial role played by the appellant, setting a precedent for similar cases where co-conspirators are involved in heinous offenses.
Pingback: Bombay High Court Declines to Vacate Ex-Parte Order in Trademark Dispute, Rules Omission of Withdrawn Rectification Application as Non-Material - Raw Law
Pingback: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Affirms Acquittal in Alleged Murder Case Citing Unreliable Eyewitness Testimonies and Absence of Conclusive Evidence Establishing Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Raw Law