The Bombay High Court dismissed an application seeking Bail on the basis of a scheme framed by the National Legal Services Authority. The court observed that it is the discretion of the concerned Court, whether to grant bail or not.
Brief Facts:
The present Application has been presented on behalf of the Applicant on the basis of the scheme titled ‘Release_UTRC@75,’ framed by the National Legal Services Authority. There are various categories. Reliance has been placed on Category No.16 which says ‘Those undertrials who are above 65 years of age’.
In the scheme, broadly, the categories can be divided into two divisions. One is the persons who are convicted and who are languishing in jail and, second is those who are waiting for their turn for the trial. Amongst the undertrial prisoners, there are various categories depending upon the nature of offence, type of punishment, medical health, gender, and age group. There are certain categories that nowhere say about the nature of offence or period of their detention as an undertrial prisoner. The category in the present case is one of such categories which mentions only the age of the undertrial prisoner.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present Applicant is above 65 years of age ― he is of 71 years ― and he fits in that category. According to him, his Bail Application was rejected by the Sessions Court and now, this Application is moved in view of the decision of the High Court Legal Services Committee. According to him, while deciding such a request, if the merits of the matter are considered, then it will defeat the purpose of that scheme.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the merits of the matter need to be considered and if they are not considered, many undertrial prisoners will be released on bail irrespective of the merits of the matter.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the purpose of launching the scheme is mentioned in the scheme itself. Considering the high proportion of undertrial prisoners, in continuation of the earlier measures taken by the NALSA, the scheme was framed. There are two aspects. One is moving the concerned Court for release on bail and the other is passing an order of bail on their request. It is true that it is the discretion of the concerned Court ― whether to grant bail or not. Such discretion cannot be taken away by any act.
Further, the Court remarked that when the trial Court as well as this Court has considered the merits, the Applicant cannot secure bail considering the merits of the matter.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the application, held that the Applicant cannot secure bail considering the merits of the matter.
Case Title: Mahipati Antu Jadhav v The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. M. Modak
Case no.: CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2777 OF 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Hrishikesh R. Chavan
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. N. B. Patil
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
