Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mohammad Khalid Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh, was accused No.1 in C.R. No.312 of 2020 registered with Bhiwandi City Police Station for offences under Sections 364-A, 384, 385, 386, and 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR was lodged by Takweem @ Guttu Ajaz Khan, a builder, who alleged that the applicant, a former corporator, demanded protection money and extorted amounts over several years, including a kidnapping incident in 2019. The applicant had been incarcerated since 25.09.2020, i.e., for 4 years 4 months and 14 days. The applicant filed his fourth bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court noted the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR (almost six years from the first incident and one year from the alleged kidnapping), the lack of direct evidence against the applicant, the negative forensic report on the recording devices, and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail. The court also considered the snail-paced trial, as charges had not yet been framed. The court granted bail to the applicant on conditions, including furnishing a PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties, not tampering with evidence, not contacting the informant, and not leaving the country without permission.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Regular Bail - Long Incarceration - The applicant had been incarcerated for 4 years 4 months and 14 days, trial had not commenced, and charges had not been framed. The court considered the delay in trial and the right to speedy trial, and granted bail on conditions. (Paras 2, 4.3) B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364-A, 384, 385, 386, 387 - Extortion and Kidnapping - Delay in FIR - The FIR was lodged almost six years after the first incident and one year after the alleged kidnapping, casting doubt on the prosecution case. (Paras 3, 4.1) C) Evidence - Forensic Report - Negative Report - The DVR hard disk and memory card sent for forensic examination yielded no data, casting a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. (Para 4.2) D) Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3 and 25 - Recovery of Plastic Pistol - The gun allegedly used to threaten the informant was a plastic pistol recovered from co-accused, not from the applicant. (Para 4.1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the long incarceration of 4 years 4 months and 14 days, the snail-paced trial, and the lack of direct evidence.
Final Decision
The court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not contacting the informant, and not leaving the country without permission.
Law Points
- Bail under Section 439 CrPC
- Right to speedy trial
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Inordinate incarceration
- Snail-paced trial
- Non-compliance of Section 50 CrPC
- Recovery of plastic pistol
- Forensic report negative
