Bombay High Court
Ajit Bhagwan Tiwde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2022
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
BA-995-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 995 OF 2021
Ajit Bhagwan Tiwde
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at Plot No.11, Ruikar Colony,
Chandane Nagar, Kolhapur,
Dist. Kolhapur
(At present in judicial custody and lodged
at Kalamba Central Prison, Kolhapur) ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Nitin Sejpal a/w Ms. Akshata B. Desai, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Mr. Y. Y. Dabke, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
ORDER RESERVED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2021
LISTED FOR CLARIFICATION ON : 7th JANUARY, 2022.
14th JANUARY, 2022.
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19th JANUARY, 2022
ORDER :
1. This is an application for bail. The applicant is arrested on 17th June, 2010 in connection with C.R. No. I - 85 of 2010, registered with Rajarampuri Police Station, Dist. Kolhapur for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 120-B and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 36
JAMADAR Date:
2022.01.19
16:47:54
+0530
BA-995-2021.doc
2. During the pendency of investigation, the
provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ( for short "MCOC Act") were sought to be invoked and prior approval was accorded on 31st August, 2010 for offences under Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act, 1999. Sanction was granted under Section 23(2) of MCOC Act, on 30 th November, 2010. Pursuant to the sanction order, the charge- sheet was filed against the accused.
3. Brief facts of the Prosecution's case are as under :
i. The Complainant Atul Patil is residing at Shahu Nagar, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur.
ii. It is alleged by the Complainant that he was aware that six months ago there was quarrel between Ajit Tiwde (present Applicant), Nitin Vetal and Avdhut Salvi. Election of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation was to be conducted in October 2010.
iii. Avdhut Salvi had influence in area of Daulat Nagar.
iv. On 4th June 2010, the Complainant, Avdhut Salvi, Mukund Palange and Javed Abdul Sayyed all residing at Shahu Nagar left from Hotel Atithi at about 11.15 hours.
They were proceeding residences by Maruti Car No. MH-04 Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc LH-607. Vehicle was driven by Mukund Palange. Avdhut Salvi was sitting next to him. Complainant and Javed Sayyed were sitting on rear seat. It is alleged by the Complainant that while their vehicle was passing through Sanmitra Housing Society, one white colour TATA Sumo vehicle came from behind and stopped in front of their car. Yogesh Nalawade, Swapnil Jadhav, Nitin Vetal, Ajit Tiwde, Govind Naidu and two unknown persons alighted from the said TATA Sumo vehicle.
v. Yogesh Nalavade was armed with Koyata, applicant and Nitin Vetal were armed with Sword. Swapnil Jadhav, Govind Naidu and two unknown persons were armed with Iron Pipes. The aforesaid persons caused damages to the vehicle and started assaulting the Complainant and others. Javed Sayyed somehow got out of the Car and ran away. He saw the assault by hiding himself behind the tree. Accused forcibly dragged the Complainant, Avdhut Salvi and Mukund out of the vehicle. Ajit Tiwde assaulted by weapon and Nitin Vetal assaulted Avdhut on his head. It is alleged that, Govind Naidu assaulted Avdhut Salvi with Iron Pipe. Swapnil Jadhav, Yogesh Nalawade, Mahesh Nalawade, Ganesh Shinde and Amar Patil assaulted complainant on his head. Mukund Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc was assaulted with iron pipe.
vi. Police Officers recorded Statement of complainant at CPR Hospital on 5th June 2010. The said statement was treated as First Information Report (for short "FIR") and offence was registered vide F.I.R. No.I-85 of 2010 with Rajarampuri Police Station.
vii. Complainant, Javed Sayyed, Mukund Palange and Govind Padgaonkar are eye witnesses.
viii. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed on 11th December, 2010.
4. According to applicant, he had suffered cardiac arrest, while in custody. He applied for bail on medical ground before Special MCOC Court, Pune. He was admitted in Sasson Hospital. By order dated 22nd November, 2013, the Special Court directed that applicant be admitted in J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. Coronary angioplasty was carried out on him. The Special Court granted bail for three months by order dated 30 th November, 2013 for treatment. The applicant took treatment at private hospitals. He surrendered to jail on 2 nd March, 2014. The applicant again preferred application for bail on medical ground which was rejected by order dated 4 th December, 2014.
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
The applicant had applied for bail before this Court on medical ground viz. Bail Application No.834 of 2015 by order dated 29 th July, 2015, it was observed that, the medical report of applicant discloses that, he requires treatment for his heart ailment. The medical treatment cannot be postponed and he has to be treated at the earliest. The application for temporary bail was allowed on medical ground for a short period i.e. one week because as per the record, angioplasty is required and applicant chose to get operated in private hospital at Kolhapur, subject to condition that the applicant shall bear expenses of escorts from police for one week. In the alternative it was directed that, applicant can be shifted to J.J. Hospital for his surgery. If the applicant is operated at J. J. Hospital, he cannot be released on temporary bail. He will be taken to J.J.Hospital as undertrial prisoner under escort of the state. Since the expenses of police escort were not affordable to the applicant, he preferred Criminal Application No.670 of 2015 for modification of order dated 29th July, 2015. This Court by order dated 14th August, 2015 directed that the applicant be released on temporary bail from 21st August, 2015 to 14th September, 2015 and he shall report Yerawada Cental Prison, Pune on 14th September, 2015. The temporary bail is with police escort. The applicant shall deposit escort charges. The Sajakali Jamadar 5 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc police escort to bring back applicant to jail on 14 th September, 2015. If the charges of police escort are not deposited, he can be operated at J.J. Hospital. The applicant could not deposit escort charges.
5. The Applicant had earlier preferred Application for Bail before the learned Special Judge in MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2010. The said Application was rejected by order dated 3rd October, 2018.
6. The applicant had thereafter, preferred Criminal Bail Application No.3384 of 2018 before this Court seeking bail. It was urged that the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. The applicant is in custody for more than 8 years. The last witness was examined on 30 th March, 2017. Thereafter, two witnesses were examined in September, 2018. After examining 7 witnesses on 28th August, 2016, the prosecution had submitted list of witnesses vide Exh.266 whereby prosecution wanted to examine 90 witnesses. On 15 th March, 2017 prosecution submitted further list of 82 witnesses. The first witness was examined on 16th February, 2016 after six years and the 17th witness was examined on 30th March, 2017. The said bail application was filed on 22nd December, 2018. This Court noted that, applicant is in custody for more than 9 years.
Sajakali Jamadar 6 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
Application was rejected by order dated 11 th December, 2019. While rejecting the application, the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months. In the event the trial is not concluded within the stipulated time, the applicant was granted liberty to prefer fresh application for bail.
7. Learned Advocate for applicant Mr. Sejpal submitted as under :-
a) The applicant is in custody for more than 11 years. The trial is proceeding at slow pace. The prosecution has examined 21 witnesses. The charge-sheet provides list of 103 witnesses to be examined by prosecution.
b) There is inordinate delay in trial. The Hon'ble Supreme and this Court has held in several decisions that inordinate delay in trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
c) The trial is not concluded even after directions to expedite it given by this Hon'ble Court.
d) That there is absolutely no evidence of any nature whatsoever to show that the Applicant is a member of organized crime syndicate and therefore there is no scope Sajakali Jamadar 7 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc to invoke charge under Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999.
e) The prosecution has submitted before the trial Court that 60 more witnesses are to be examined.
f) Co-accused Sanjay Waskar has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 10th November, 2014.
g) Trial would not be concluded shortly. Prolonged custody without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. Learned APP submitted that the previous application for bail was rejected. No ground is made out to grant bail. The trial could not be proceeded on account of several reasons. He tendered Police report dated 20 th September, 2021. The report mentions that, seven other cases are registered against the applicant viz. C.R. No.67 of 2004 under Sections 394 & 395 of IPC registered with Gandhi Nagar Police Station which has been closed after granting summary. C.R. No.71 of 2006 registered with Rajarampuri Police Station for offences under Sections 307, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC; C.R. No.162 of 2007 registered with Miraj Police Station for offences under Sections 392, 414, 34 of IPC; C.R. No.125 of 2007 registered with Rajarampuri Police Station for offences under Sajakali Jamadar 8 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc Sections 326, 34 IPC; C.R. No.43 of 2008 registered with Vishram Bag Police Station for offence under Section 302 of IPC; C.R. No 24 of 2009 registered with Gandhi Nagar Police Station for offences under Sections 3 & 25 of the Arms Act; C.R. No.27 of 2014 registered with Shahupuri Police Station for offence under Section 324 of IPC. The report further mentions that the applicant may abscond. There is danger to life of applicant from his opponents. He was involved in C.R. No.27 of 2014 registered with Shahupuri Police Station for offences under Sections 324, 34 of IPC. There was attempt on life of applicant on 18th February, 2011 and offence is registered against the assailants vide C.R. No.31 of 2011 under Sections 307, 147 & 148 of IPC.
9. Learned Advocate for applicant tendered the compilation of Judgment wherein applicant is acquitted in cases registered against him. Learned Advocate for applicant on instructions submitted that, except C.R. No.24 of 2009 registered with Gandhinagar Police Station under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and excluding present case, the applicant has been acquitted in all the other cases. The judgments tendered by Advocate for applicant relates to C.R.No. 162 of 2007, C.R. No.43 of 2008 and C.R. No.27 of 2014.
Sajakali Jamadar 9 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
Learned Advocate for applicant has stated that the applicant has been acquitted in all the cases registered against him herein above. Thus excluding present case and one case referred to above C.R. No.27 of 2014 relates to the offence which was allegedly committed while on bail, is also resulted in acquittal.
10. Learned Advocate for the Applicant relied upon the following decisions.
i. Union of India Vs. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3-SCC-713; ii. Angela Harish Sontakke V/s. State of Maharashtra delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 440 of 2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 4 th May, 2016 (2021) 3 SCC 723.
iii. Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed V/s. The State of Maharashtra - Division Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.355 of 2021 decided on 13 th August, 2021.
iv. Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay V/s. State of Maharashtra passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.2543 of 2021 vide Order dated 17th September, 2021.
Sajakali Jamadar 10 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
11. Undisputedly, the applicant is in custody from 17 th June, 2010. He has undergone a period of about 11 years, 6 months in custody. In the previous application preferred by the applicant it was urged that he is in custody for substantial period of time and the trial is proceeding with snails pace. Vide order dated 11th December, 2019 this Court took note to the fact that the applicant is in custody for more than nine years. Considering the fact that the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses. The trial Court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within 6 months. Apparently only two more witnesses were examined thereafter.
12. Right to speedy trial flows from right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. In the case of Shaheen Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and others (1996) 2 SCC 616, it was observed by the Supreme Court that it was necessary to grant relief to those persons who have been deprived of their personal liberty for a considerable length of time without any prospect of trial being concluded in the near future. Undoubtedly, the safety of the community and of the nation needs to be safeguarded looking to the nature of the offences these undertrials have been charged with. But the ultimate justification for such deprivation of Sajakali Jamadar 11 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc liberty pending trial can only be their being found guilty of the offences for which they have been charged. If such a finding is not likely to be arrived at within a reasonable time some relief becomes necessary. The Court was dealing with the cases registered under the provisions of TADA Act. The Court was conscious of the fact that there is embargo for release of prisoners prosecuted for the offences of TADA u/s.20(8) of the said Act. The Supreme Court divided the undertrial prisoners under TADA based on their role/hard core criminals into various classes and by adopting pragmatic and just approach relief was directed to be granted considering gravity of the charges. The Courts were given discretion to consider grant/refusal of bail based on antecedents and on conclusion that there is no likelihood of harm to lives of complainant and others in the event of their release.
14. In the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI AIR 2012 SC 830, it was observed that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Sajakali Jamadar 12 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un- convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. The grant or denial is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
Sajakali Jamadar 13 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
15. In the case of Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2013) 2 SCC 596, it was observed that the accused was languishing in prison for more than 12 years and awaiting his trial for the offences under the provisions of NDPS Act. He was consistently denied bail. The maximum punishment for the offence was 20 years and he remained in detention for the period exceeding one half of the maximum period of imprisonment. The Court issued directions on various issues, which would be of assistance to conclude trials pending in Courts expeditiously.
16. In the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, it was observed that the Supreme Court has given directions in number of cases about speedy conclusion of trials. Speedy trial is part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. While a person in custody for a grave offence may not be released if trial is delayed, trial has to be expedited or bail has to be granted in such cases. The Court issued directions and one of Sajakali Jamadar 14 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc them was, as a supplement to Section 436-A but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded, such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the Trial Courts concerned from time to time. Timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights. Denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice.
17. In Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.R.Nayak (1992) 1- SCC-225, while holding that speedy trial at all stages is part of right under Article 21. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar (1995)5-SCC-326, it was observed that general orders for release of undertrials without reference to specific fact situations in different cases may prove to be hazardous. While there can be no doubt that undertrial prisoners should not languish in jails on account of refusal to enlarge them on bail, for want of their capacity to furnish bail, these are matters to be dealt with on case to case basis keeping in mind guidelines laid down by Court. Sympathy for undertrials who are in jail for long time on account of the pendency of cases, has to be balanced having regard to the impact of crime.
18. In Vivek Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (2000) 9-SCC-443, Sajakali Jamadar 15 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc bail was granted to accused by Supreme Court on the ground that it is quite a long period that he is in custody. In Babba Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005)11-SCC-569, the accused was in custody for a long period for offence under TADA Act. In Paramjit Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court granted bail. The accused was prosecuted under TADA Act. Earlier the application was rejected and trial was expedited. There was no progress in trial. In the case of Angela Sontakke Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused facing prosecution under UAPA Act on the ground that accused is in custody for five years. In the case of Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay (Supra), the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused charged for the offence under Section 302 of IPC which the trial was in progress, 28 witnesses were examined and 12 more were to be examined on the ground that accused was in custody for 6 years.
19. The settled principle of law is that prolonged custody affects fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India. There is no debate that incarceration in custody for long period without trial or completion of trial affects personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Sajakali Jamadar 16 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
20. In relation to some offences under special
legislations, there are restrictions for granting bail. For
example, Section 37 of NDPS Act, Section 20(8) of TADA Act, Section 21(4) of MCOC Act and Section 43-D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA Act). The present case relates to offences under MCOC Act. Speedy trial is right of all the undertrial prisoners. The decisions referred to herein relates to grant of bail on the ground of prolonged custody in different kind of offences including those wherein there are statutory restrictions. In the recent decision in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal challenging bail granted to the accused for the offence under UAPA Act and IPC. The accused therein was granted bail by the High Court of Kerala, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506, 201, 202, 153A, 212, 307, 149 IPC, u/s.31 of Explosive Substances Act and u/s.16, 18, 18B, 19 and 20 of UAPA act, 1967. The accused had approached the High Court for third time questioning the Special Court's order denying bail. The High Court through the impugned order released the accused on bail noting that trial is yet to begin, though the respondent had been in custody for four years. Placing emphasis on the mandate for an expeditious trial under the Sajakali Jamadar 17 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the High Court held that the undertrial-respondent could not be kept in custody for too long when the trial was not likely to commence in the near future, for not doing so would cause serious prejudice and suffering to him. The accused had spent nearly five years and five months in judicial custody. In the appeal before Supreme Court, the contention of the appellants-Union of India was that the High Court erred in granting bail without adverting to the statutory rigours of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA Act. Relying upon the judgment in the case of National Investigation Agency Vs. Jahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019)5-SCC-1, it was highlighted that bail proceedings under the special enactment were distinct and the courts are duty bound to refuse bail where the suspect is prima facie believed to be guilty. It was further contended that in numerous prior rounds before the Special Court and the High Court, there emerged enough reasons to believe that the respondent was, prima facie, guilty of the accusations made against him. The fact that the respondent had absconded for years was pressed into aid as legitimate apprehension of his not returning if set free. The NIA had filed an affidavit suggesting to examine 276 witnesses and at the same time expecting to conduct the trial on a day to day basis and complete it within a year. The respondents, however, had contended that many co-
Sajakali Jamadar 18 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
accused had been acquitted and few had been convicted. They were awarded sentence of not more than eight years. The accused had suffered incarceration of five and half years without trial having started. Relying on the decision in the case of Shaheen Welfare Association (supra) and Hussain and another (supra), it was argued that protracted incarceration violates the respondent's right to speedy trial and access to justice, in which case, Constitutional Courts could exercise their powers to grant bail, regardless of limitations specified under special enactments. In paragraph 10 it was observed that it is a fact that the High Court in the said case has not determined the likelihood of the respondent being guilty or not, or whether rigours of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA Act are alien to him. The High Court instead appears to have exercised its power to grant bail owing to the long period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime in the near future. The reasons assigned by the High Court are apparently traceable back to Article 21 of Constitution, of course without addressing the statutory embargo created by Section 43-D(5) of UAPA Act. In paragraph 11 it is observed that the High Court's view draws support from the batch of decisions of Supreme Court including Shaheen Welfare Association (supra) laying down that gross delay in disposal of Sajakali Jamadar 19 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc such cases would justify the invocation of Article 21 of Constitution and consequential necessity to release the undertrial on bail. The Court quoted paragraph 10 of the decision in the case of Shaheen Welfare Association (supra).
21. In paragraph 12 of the decision in Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb, it was observed as follows :
"12. Even in the case of special legislations like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`the NDPS Act') which too have somewhat rigorous conditions for grant of bail, this Court in Paramjit Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999)9-SCC-252, Babba Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005)11-SCC-569 and Umarmia Vs. State of Gujarat (2017)2-SCC-731 enlarged the accused on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of trial. The constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments, has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent civilians."
22. The Supreme Court then referred to the orders enlarging similarly situated accused under UAPA Act in Angela Harish Sontakke Vs. State of Maharashtra (2021)3-SCC-723. It was further observed that the Court in its earnest effort to draw balance between the seriousness of the charges with the period of custody suffered and the likely period within which Sajakali Jamadar 20 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc the trial could be expected to be completed took note of the five years incarceration and over 200 witnesses left to be examined, and thus granted bail to the accused notwithstanding Section 43-D(5) of UAPA Act. Reference was made to the decisions in the case of Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe Vs. State of Maharashtra (SLP {Cri.} No.7947 of 2015, order dtd.3.1.2017) wherein the accused under UAPA Act was enlarged on bail since he was in custody for four years and there were several witnesses to be unexamined. The Court analyzed the factual aspects of the matter which were also weighed in granting bail.
23. Observations in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the decision in Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb needs to be looked upon which are as follows:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) Vs. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large Sajakali Jamadar 21 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.
16. As regards the judgment in NIA Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, cited by the learned ASG, we find that it dealt with an entirely different factual matrix. In that case, the High Court had reappreciated the entire evidence on record to overturn the Special Court's conclusion of their being a prima facie case of conviction and concomitant rejection of bail. The High Court had practically conducted a mini-trial and determined admissibility of certain evidence, which exceeded the limited scope of a bail petition. This not only was beyond the statutory mandate of a prima facie assessment under Section 43-D(5), but it was premature and possibly would have prejudiced the trial itself. It was in these circumstances that this Court intervened and cancelled the bail.
17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonized. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an Sajakali Jamadar 22 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.
18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant's right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent's rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected."
24. In paragraph 19 of the said decision, however, the Supreme Court has noted that Section 43-D(5) of UAPA Act is comparatively less stringent unlike Section 37 of NDPS Act. However, in the earlier paragraph the Court has reiterated the fact that even in cases where there are stringent provisions for bail, on the ground of prolonged custody, bail has been granted. Reference is made to several decisions of Apex Court.
25. Although it is not necessary to go deep into the restrictions like Section 37 of NDPS Act, Section 20(8) of TADA Sajakali Jamadar 23 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc Act and Section 21(4) of MCOC act, since the right to speedy trial is supreme, it is required to be noted that above provisions carrying embargo for grant of bail under TADA Act, NDPS Act and MCOC Act are pari materia. It is true there is distinction in embarto for bail, qua UAPA act. However, that should not be hurdle in granting bail on the ground of infringement of Article 21 of Constitution of India. No decision has been brought to notice of the Court wherein bail has been refused by Supreme Court, in spite of accused being in prolonged custody on the basis of such restrictions. It is also pertinent to note the extent to which such rigours can be interpreted while granting bail. In the case of Ranjitsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2005-ALL.MR (Cri)-1538-(SC), it is observed in quoted paragraphs as follows :
"28. Section 21 provides for modified application of certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sub-section (4) whereof is as under :
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond, unless -
(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of such release;
and
(b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are Sajakali Jamadar 24 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."
45. The Act is deterrent in nature. It provides for deterrent punishment. It envisages three to ten years of imprisonment and may extend to life imprisonment. Death penalty can also be imposed if somebody commits a murder. Similarly, fines ranging between three to ten lakhs can be imposed.
46. Presumption of innocence is a human right (See Narendra Singh and another Vs. State of MP (2004)10-SCC-699:2004 ALL MR (Cri)2557 (SC). Para31). Article 21 in view of its expansive meaning not only protects life and liberty but also envisages a fair procedure. Liberty of a person should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there exist cogent grounds therefor. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 must be interpreted keeping in view the aforementioned salutary principles. Giving an opportunity to the public prosecutor to oppose an application for release of an accused appears to be reasonable restriction but Clause
(b) of sub-section (4) of Section 21 must be given a proper meaning.
47. Does this statute require that before a person is released on bail, the Court, albeit prima facie, must come to the conclusion that he is not guilty of such offence ? Is it necessary for the Court to record such a finding ? Would there be any machinery available to the Court to ascertain that once the accused is enlarged on bail, he would not commit any offence whatsoever ?
48. Such findings are required to be recorded only for the purpose of arriving at an objective finding on the basis of materials on records only for grant of bail and for no other purpose.
Sajakali Jamadar 25 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
49. We are furthermore of the opinion that the restrictions on the power of the Court to grant bail should not be pushed too far. If the Court, having regard to the materials brought on record, is satisfied that in all probability he may not be ultimately convicted, an order granting bail may be passed. The satisfaction of the Court as regards his likelihood of not committing an offence while on bail must be construed to mean an offence under the Act and not any offence whatsoever be it a minor or major offence. If such an expansive meaning is given, even likelihood of commission of an offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code may debar the Court from releasing the accused on bail. A statute, it is trite, should not be interpreted in such a manner as would lead to absurdity. What would further be necessary on the part of the Court is to see the culpability of the accused and his involvement in the commission of an organized crime either directly or indirectly. The Court at the time of considering the application for grant of bail shall consider the question from the angle as to whether he was possessed of the requisite mens rea. Every little omission or commission, negligence or dereliction may not lead to a possibility of his having culpability in the matter which is not the sine qua non for attracting the provisions of MCOCA. A person in a given situation may not do that which he ought to have done. The Court may in a situation of this nature keep in mind broad principles of law that some acts of omission and commission on the part of a public servant may attract disciplinary proceedings but may not attract a penal provision.
55. The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a Sajakali Jamadar 26 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the Court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the Court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in future must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence."
26. Thus, embargo under the provisions of Special Acts shall not be an impediment in grant of bail by this Court on the ground of incarceration of accused in custody for a long time, more particularly in the light of various decisions of Supreme Court.
27. The Division Bench in a recent decision delivered in Criminal Appeal No.389 of 2020 in the case of NIA Vs. Areeb Ejaz Majeed (supra) has dealt with a similar issue. The respondent therein was prosecuted by NIA under the Sajakali Jamadar 27 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc provisions of UAPA Act. He was arrested on 29th November 2014. He had preferred applications for bail which were rejected. Subsequently he was granted bail by NIA Court. While passing the order granting bail the Special Court proceeded on two aspects, firstly that the pace of the trial was slow and there was likelihood that there was long time for examining the remaining witnesses. The NIA Court concluded that since law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaheen Welfare Association (supra) apply in favour of accused, the bail application should be granted on the aspect of the matter. The other aspect which was considered by the NIA Court was that the witnesses were examined before the said Court and prima facie case is not made out. The Court, therefore, held that even taking recourse to Section 43-D(5) of NIA Act, the accused is entitled to be released on bail. Other decisions of the Supreme Court were placed for consideration before the Court. The accused was in custody for a period of six years. About 107 witnesses were remained to be examined. The NIA Court considered the decisions in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb (supra) and Shaheen Welfare Association (supra). Bail was granted on the ground that accused is in jail for six years and also on the basis of evidence adduced before Trial Court. Previous applications were rejected on merits and only Sajakali Jamadar 28 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc on the basis of evidence which was recorded subsequently the NIA Court came to the conclusion with regards to the prima facie case against accused when the accusations had rendered twice by rejecting previous applications for bail. The Division Bench accepted the contention of appellant that in view of previous rejection of bail application, on the basis of evidence recorded by the Court, the Court could not have granted bail on merits. The Division Bench also observed that case of the accused on second aspect of the matter appears to be on firm footing. In paragraph 29 it is observed as follows :
"29. There is no dispute about the fact that right to fair and speedy trial is a right recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts including this High Court have consistently held that undertrials cannot be allowed to languish for years together in jail while the trial proceeds at the snail's pace. If ultimately the accused are found to be not guilty, the number of years, months and days spent by such accused as undertrials in jail, can never be given back to them and this is certainly a violation of their valuable right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, right to speedy trial has been recognized and reaffirmed consistently by the judgments of the superior courts."
In paragraph 31 the Division Bench has observed that :
"In cases where the accused are facing charges under special Acts like UAPA Act, parameters for grant of bail Sajakali Jamadar 29 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc are more stringent as a consequence of which the undertrials in such cases remain in custody while the trials are pending. This is because they are accused in serious and heinous offences and their rights are required to be balanced with the rights of the society and citizens at large. The Courts then are required to perform a balancing act, so as to ensure that a golden mean is reached between the rights of the individual and those of the society at large."
In paragraph 32 the Court then referred to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shaheen Welfare Association (supra) wherein it was held that long time taken by courts in disposal of the cases would justify invoking Article 21 of Constitution of India to issue directions to release the undertrials on bail. By analyzing the facts of the case and considering the fact that accused was in custody for a substantial period of time, it was held that it cannot be said that the NIA Court committed an error in granting bail to the accused. The Court did not distinguish the order granting bail on the basis that the effect of rigours under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA Act is lesser than other Special Laws.
Sajakali Jamadar 30 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
28. In the case of Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb (supra), the Supreme Court has considered the stringent conditions for grant of bail under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA Act. In the said case the accused was in custody for the offences under UAPA Act. In the case of The NIA Vs. Areeb Ejaz Majeed (supra), the accused was tried for the offences under UAPA Act. In both the cases, the accused was granted bail by High Court and NIA Court on the ground that accused was in custody without trial for long period of time, which affected his right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Both the orders were confirmed by the Appellate Courts.
29. The division bench of this Court in the case of Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed (Supra) granted bail to the accused charged for offences under the UAPA Act. It was contented that the appellant was in custody for five years and it is very unlikely that the trial would be concluded in reasonable time. On this count of prolonged incarceration the accused deserves to be released on bail, lest the constitutional guarantee of right to life and personal liberty would be jeopardized. It was observed that, right of accused to speedy trial, which flows from the right to life, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, comes to the fore. This right to speedy trial, in the prosecutions Sajakali Jamadar 31 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc where the Special enactments restrict the powers of the Court to grant bail, faces a competing claim of the interest of society and security of state. In such prosecutions, if the trials are not concluded expeditiously, the procedure which deprives the personal liberty for an inordinate period is then put to the test of fairness and reasonableness, envisaged by Article 21 of the constitution where the period of incarceration awaiting adjudication of guilt become unduly long, the right to life and the protection of fair and reasonable procedure, envisaged by Article 21 are jeopardized. The Supreme Court has exposited the legal position that the statutory restriction like Section 43-D (5) of UAPA per se does not operate as an impediment on the powers of the constitutional Court to grant bail, if a case of infringement of the constitutional guarantee of protection of life and personal liberty is made out and the rigorous of such statutory restrictions would melt down in the fact of long incarceration of an under trial prisoner. In such a situation, the prayer for bail on the count of prolonged delay in conclusion of trial is required to be appreciated in the backdrop of period of incarceration, the prospect of completion of trial in a reasonable time, the gravity of the charge and attendant circumstances.
Sajakali Jamadar 32 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
30. In the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (supra), the Court had directed proviso for grant of bail that benefit of direction in clause (ii) and (iii) shall not be available to those persons who are in the opinion of the Trial Court for the reasons to be stated in writing likely to tamper with evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses. In the case of Shaheen Welfare Association (supra), it was cautioned that bail can be granted unless Court comes to conclusion that their antecedents are such that releasing them may be harmful to the lives of complainant, family members of complainant or witnesses. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon, it was observed that sympathy for undertrials who are in jail for long terms on account of pendency of cases, has to be balanced having regard to impact of crime. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of NIA Vs. Areeb Majeed has observed that in cases under Special Acts, parameters for grant of bail are more stringent and they remain in custody. The courts are required to perform balancing act, so as to reach a golden mean in between the rights of an individual and those of society at large. The court has to look into those aspects while granting bail even on the ground that the undertrial is in prolonged custody.
Sajakali Jamadar 33 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
31. In the light of observations of Supreme Court and this Court as stated above, the Court has to perform balancing act. The sympathy for undertrials who are in custody has to be balanced with gravity/magnitude of crime, likelihood of threat to witnesses. The analysis may be based on facts of each case.
32. Applying the principal enunciated herein above and the facts of this case, it is required to be noted that the applicant is in custody for more than 11 years and 6 months. It is not clear as to when the trial would come to an end. The prosecution has so far examined 21 witnesses. There is proposed list of 62 more witnesses. The future picture is unclear as to how long it would take to conclude the trial. While the applicant had preferred previous application for bail, this Court thought it fit to expedite the trial instead of granting bail. The trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months vide order dated 11 th December, 2019. At that time 19 witnesses were examined. Two years down the line, two more witnesses were examined. 11 and half years is a long period. There is passage of about two years from the issuance of the said directions and apparently only two witnesses are examined. Even before the declaration of lock- down, there was no speed in the trial. The applicant cannot be Sajakali Jamadar 34 of 36 BA-995-2021.doc incarcerated in custody for indefinite period. Prolonged custody infringes Article-21 of the Constitution of India. Except apprehension, there is no material that the applicant would abscond or tamper with the evidence. Co-accused Sanjay Bhairu Waskar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10th November, 2014. The said accused was involved in other cases. Apart from merits of the case, this Court had observed that, the said accused is in custody from 13 th June, 2010, for a period of about 4 and half years. Hence, case for grant of bail is made out.
33. Hence, I pass the following order :
ORDER i. Criminal Bail Application No. 995 of 2021 is allowed;
ii. The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I - 85 of 2010, registered with Rajarampuri Police Station, Dist. Kolhapur on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one or more sureties in the like amount;
iii. The applicant shall stay out of the Jurisdiction of Rajarampuri Police Station, till further orders.
Sajakali Jamadar 35 of 36
BA-995-2021.doc
iv. The applicant shall provide the details of place
where he would reside after release on bail to the trial Court and concerned Police Station.
v. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Special Court, under the MCOC Act; vi. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence; vii. In the event, the applicant has passport, the same shall be deposited with the trial Court. If he do not possess any passport, he shall file an affidavit in that regard before the trial Court;
viii. The applicant shall attend trial Court regularly on the date of hearing unless exempted by the Court. ix. Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 36 of 36