Bombay High Court

Satendra @ Sonu Ramji Pal vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 December, 2023

Author: M. S. Karnik

Bench: M. S. Karnik

2023:BHC-AS:36523



                    Urmila Ingale                                      39-ba-573-23.doc


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                BAIL APPLICATION NO. 573 OF 2023

                    SATENDRA @ SONU RAMJI PAL                     ..APPLICANT
                         VS.
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                      ..RESPONDENT


                    Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Bhomesh Bellam,
                    for the Applicant.
                    Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the State.


                                                 CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

                                                 DATE     : DECEMBER 07, 2023
                    P.C. :

                    1.     Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned

                    APP for the State.

                    2.     This is an application for bail in respect of the offence

                    punishable under sections 302, 307, 120B read with 34 of

                    the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under sections 3, 25 and

                    27 of the Arms Act registered on 22/04/2018 vide C.R.

                    No.249 of 2018 with Kurar police station.

                    3.     The applicant is the accused no.3. The applicant was

                    arrested on 08/05/2018.

                    4.     So far as the Brijesh Naturam Patel (accused no. 4) is

                    concerned, he had a motive and his role is similar to that of


                                                                                  1/6
 Urmila Ingale                                         39-ba-573-23.doc


the applicant. Brijesh Naturam Patel has been enlarged on

bail by the order dated 18/10/2023 passed by this Court in

Bail Application No. 1503 of 2022. The relevant portion of

the order reads thus :

       "This is a second bail application filed by the applicant,
       who is arraigned as accused in C.R. No. 249 of 2018
       registered with Kurar Police Station, which was
       investigated by Crime Branch, as it invoked Sections 302,
       307, 120 (B) of IPC, along with Sections 3, 25, and 27 of
       the Indian Arms Act.
             In connection with the aforesaid CR, he was arrested
       on 8/05/2018 and since then he remains incarcerated.
       2     The first application filed by him, seeking his release
       on bail was decided on merits on 16/04/2021, and
       considering his involvement in the subject crime and by
       referring to the conspiracy that has hatched, to do away
       the deceased person, the application was rejected. In the
       said order, it is specifically recorded that the offence
       committed by the accused persons is grave and serious,
       as the deceased was done away by resorting to the
       method of contract killing on account of dispute in the
       SRA project and the involvement of the accused clearly
       surfaced through the charge-sheet as well as the
       supplementary charge-sheet.
       3     The learned counsel Mr. Muttahar Khan appearing for
       the applicant would press into service, the long period of
       his incarceration, as according to him, it is more than 4
       years of his arrest that he continue to be incarcerated as
       under-trial prisoner and the charge has been framed just
       few months back, with no chance of culmination of trial in
       near future.
             According to Mr. Khan, there are large number of
       witnesses to be examined by the prosecution and with 9
       accused facing the trial, the time be required for
       culmination of the trial cannot be approximated and rather
       with the pendency of huge number of trials, he expressed
       that it may consume considerable period of time.
             Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case
       of Union of India vs. K.A Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, where
       speedy trial has been held recognized to be the right of
       the accused, Mr. Khan would pray for release of the

                                                                 2/6
 Urmila Ingale                                          39-ba-573-23.doc


       applicant on bail subject to any conditions, which the
       Court may impose.
             Apart from this, he would also place reliance upon the
       order passed in case of co-accused Amit Singh, who on
       14/11/2022, is directed to be released on bail, on
       appreciating the merits of the case as well as the long
       incarceration for four years with the trial not being in
       foresight.
       4     The learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Bagade do
       not dispute the fact that the prosecution has a long way to
       go as it intend to examine approximately 60 to 70
       witnesses for indicting the 9 accused persons. He also do
       not dispute the position that the charge has been recently
       framed, but according to him, looking to the seriousness of
       the accusations with the strong material compiled in the
       charge-sheet against the applicant, with the first
       application having been rejected, the second deserve to
       meet the same fate.
       5     Considering the fact of the incarceration of the
       applicant for period of more than four years as on date
       and since the volume of the trial appear to be enormous
       with around 60 to 70 witnesses to be examined, as 9
       accused are facing the charge in the trial, I find sufficient
       substance in the submission of Mr. Khan.
             It is by not a well settled position of law that an under
       trial prisoner, cannot be incarcerated indefinitely and
       though the gravity of the accusations faced and the nature
       of offence with which he is charged may be a relevant
       factor, but a balance will have to be struck between the
       gravity of accusations and the period of incarceration.
             A plethora of judgments have now recognized access
       of justice, including a right to fair trial as a part of 'due
       process'. Once it is evident 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.
       6     The purpose of grant of bail is neither punitive nor
       preventative but it is aimed at securing the appearance of
       the person at trial and deprivation of liberty prior to
       conviction definitely attract great hardship and since bail
       is the rule and jail is an exception, the Court shall lean
       towards release of an accused on bail and in a case like
       this when one can foresee the fate of a trial which is likely
       to be long drawn, the applicant cannot be continued to be
       detained as an under trial prisoner and deserve his liberty
       though he may take the consequences of the accusations

                                                                  3/6
 Urmila Ingale                                     39-ba-573-23.doc


       in the trial, once it is culminated."

5.     Learned Special PP opposed the application for bail on

merits as well as on the ground that there are as many as 4

antecedents reported against the applicant. Learned Special

PP submitted that parity will not apply as the accused

Brijesh Naturam Patel has no antecedents to his discredit

Though the present applicant is having 4 antecedents

pertaining to bodily offences to his discredit, considering the

long period of incarceration, in my opinion, criminal

antecedents by itself should not come in the way of the

applicant in deriving the facility of bail as in any case, I

propose to impose stringent conditions while enlarging the

applicant on bail. The applicant can otherwise claim parity

with the co-accused.

6.     So far as the trial is concerned, charges have been

framed. Learned Special PP states that the witnesses are

attending, however, trial is not proceeding for one reason or

the other.      The delay is not attributable to the present

applicant. The investigation is complete. The charge-sheet

has been filed.       In the facts and circumstances of the

present case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.



                                                             4/6
 Urmila Ingale                                         39-ba-573-23.doc


Hence, the following order :-



                                ORDER

(a) The application is allowed.

(b) The applicant- Satendra @ Sonu Ramji Pal in connection with C.R. No. 249 of 2018 registered with Kurar police station shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

(d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(e) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the investigating officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

(f) Except for attending the trial and for the purpose of reporting to Dahisar Crime Branch (Unit-12), the applicant

Urmila Ingale 39-ba-573-23.doc

shall not enter the jurisdiction of Mumbai/Mumbai Suburban Districts after being released on bail, till the trial concludes.

(g) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(h) It is made clear that if the applicant indulges in the similar type of offence in future, the same shall afford a ground to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.

7. The application is disposed of.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Signed by: Urmila P. Ingale Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/12/2023 18:36:44