Bombay High Court
Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 August, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-AS:34726-DB
1/4 28 apeall 749-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2024
Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondents
...
Mr.Mateen Shaikh, with Mr.Sharif Shaikh, Shrinivas Kshirsagar,
Muskan Shaikh, S. Ansari, Ansar Tamboli, Jumma Shaikh, Afrin
Khan, Nadeep Shaikh, Arshad Shaikh, Ejaz Shaikh, and
Muzamji Shaikh for the appellant.
Mr. Sandesh Patil with Mr.Chintan Shah for respondent NIA.
Mr.Vinod Kadam, DSP, NIA present.
Mr.S.V. Gavand, APP for the State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,JJ.
DATED : 27th AUGUST, 2024
P.C:-
1 Recently, the Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia
Vs. Enforcement Directorate1, has re-iterated the well accepted
principle "bail is the rule and jail is an exception".
The specific observation in the said judgment reads
thus :-
"52 The Court also reproduced the observations made in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:
1 2021(3) SCC 713
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 22:35:18 :::
2/4 28 apeall 749-24.doc
"10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial
courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by
this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor,
High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote:
"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is
the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial
or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose,
(1898) 18 Cox]:
"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It
cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country
that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the
requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the
prisoner at trial."
"53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial
courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of
law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience,
we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt
to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-
grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is
flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge
pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should
recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".
2 On 20/8/2024, Mr.Patil representing NIA informed
us that 25 witnesses have been examined and he was directed
to take instructions about the further course of action in the
trial.
On the instructions received, Mr.Patil make a
statement that NIA intend to examine 48 more witnesses.
3 Considering the long incarceration of the appellant
for more than six years as on date, he being arrested on
11/5/2018 by ATS, Kala Chowky police station, in C.R.No.
13/2014, which case was subsequently transferred to NIA in
the year 2018 and the FIR being registered vide No.RC-
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 22:35:18 :::
3/4 28 apeall 749-24.doc
02/018/NIA/MUM on 2/8/2018, and since considerable length
of time is likely to be consumed in examining 48 witnesses and
specifically it is also informed to us that the Court, which is in
seisin of the trial, is already entrusted with 12 time-bound
trials, we do not intend to direct the learned Judge to perform
an impossible task of expeditiously concluding the trial. It is a
well known principle in law, that justice hurried is justice
burried, and in no way, we want the Judge to hurry up the trial
under our orders.
Since the right to speedy trial is a well recognised
right of an accused, being covered under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to pass the
following order:-
ORDER
(a) Appeal is allowed.
(b) Appellant Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib is directed
to be enlarged on bail in FIR No.RC-02/2018/NIA/Mum,
Mumbai, on furnishing P.R. Bond to the extent of
Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
(c) The appellant shall mark his attendance on first
Monday of every month between 05:00 p.m to 06:00 p.m.
to NIA, Mumbai and make himself available as and when
required by the Investigating Officer.
(d) The appellant shall provide his current address,
telephone number, place of residence and intimate about the
change if any, to the concerned Investigating Officer.
Tilak
4/4 28 apeall 749-24.doc
(e) The appellant 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
appellant shall not tamper with evidence.
(f) The appellant shall not travel outside the jurisdiction
of the Trial Judge without its prior permission.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Tilak
