Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court granted bail to the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with C.R. No. 419 of 2022 registered with the Sinhagad Road Police Station, Pune. The applicant was released on bail due to the extended duration of custody and lack of progress in the trial. The bail was granted on the condition that the applicant would not enter Pune district, except for trial-related purposes, and would comply with certain reporting requirements.
Facts:
- The incident took place on the night of 25th September 2022 when a group of 14 individuals, including the applicant, were having a party.
- During the party, the accused noticed the deceased in the vicinity and suspected him of being a thief.
- The deceased attempted to flee, but the group chased him down, brought him back, and assaulted him, resulting in his death.
- The applicant was arrested on 20th December 2022, and the charge-sheet was filed on 23rd December 2022.
- The applicant has been in custody since his arrest, and the charge is yet to be framed in the trial.
Issues:
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the CrPC considering the nature of the crime and the applicant’s antecedents.
- Whether the delay in trial and lack of motive in the incident merit the granting of bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The applicant’s counsel argued that even if the prosecution’s case is accepted as it is, the offense under Section 302 IPC is not made out, as there was no clear motive.
- It was emphasized that the applicant has no serious criminal antecedents that would disqualify him from being granted bail.
- Out of the 14 accused, 10 have already been released on bail.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) argued that the applicant was involved in a serious crime where an innocent person was assaulted on mere suspicion.
- The APP highlighted that the applicant had two prior antecedents, including one under Section 302 IPC.
- The APP referred to witness statements and the post-mortem report, which indicated that the deceased suffered multiple injuries, including some on vital parts.
Analysis of the Law:
The court analyzed Section 439 of the CrPC, which governs bail provisions for non-bailable offenses. The court considered the applicant’s extended custody and the lack of trial progress. Further, while the seriousness of the offense under Section 302 IPC was acknowledged, the court weighed the applicant’s right to a fair trial and the prolonged incarceration.
Precedent Analysis:
The court did not cite specific judgments but relied on general principles established in bail jurisprudence that prolonged detention without trial may warrant release on bail.
Court’s Reasoning:
- The court acknowledged that the incident, as per the prosecution’s version, stemmed from a misunderstanding and a lack of clear motive.
- Although the applicant had prior antecedents, it was noted that in one of the antecedent cases, he had already been acquitted.
- The court observed that the applicant had been in custody for two years, and the trial had not progressed due to a backlog of cases and procedural delays.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court concluded that in light of the applicant’s prolonged incarceration and lack of trial progress, bail was justified. The court imposed conditions to ensure that the applicant would not interfere with the investigation or the witnesses and would regularly report to the designated police station.
Implications:
The decision emphasizes the court’s approach towards balancing the seriousness of the crime with the right to a fair and expeditious trial. It serves as a reminder that prolonged pre-trial detention can result in the granting of bail, even in cases involving grave charges like murder, when procedural delays are evident.
