The Bombay High Court granted regular bail to Mohammad Khalid Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh (Accused No.1) due to prolonged incarceration of 4 years, 4 months, and 14 days and lack of any foreseeable timeline for trial commencement, reaffirming the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Emphasizes the principle of bail as the rule and jail as the exception. (Para 9 ) Highlights the right to speedy trial and personal liberty. (Para 14 ) Notes the lack of foreseeable trial commencement and extended incarceration. (Para 17 ) Specifies conditions imposed for granting bail. (Para 18 )

The Court granted regular bail considering the long incarceration of 4 years, 4 months, and 14 days, the right to speedy trial under Article 21, and lack of progress in trial proceedings. Conditions imposed to prevent witness tampering and ensure cooperation with the trial.

Acts and Sections:

• Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Speedy Trial and Personal Liberty.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Power of High Court and Sessions Court to Grant Bail.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 364-A — Kidnapping for Ransom; Section 384 — Extortion; Section 385 — Putting Person in Fear of Injury to Commit Extortion; Section 386 — Extortion by Putting Person in Fear of Death or Grievous Hurt; Section 387 — Putting Person in Fear of Death for Extortion.

• Arms Act, 1959 — Section 3 — License for Acquisition and Possession of Firearms; Section 25 — Punishment for Certain Offences.

Subjects:

Bail — Right to Speedy Trial — Long Incarceration — Extortion — Criminal Intimidation — Political Influence — Delay in Trial — Fair Procedure — Presumption of Innocence — Constitutional Rights — Judicial Discretion.

Nature of Litigation: Criminal Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail.

Relief Sought: Applicant sought regular bail citing prolonged incarceration, right to speedy trial, and lack of direct evidence.

Reason for Filing: Allegations of extortion, threats, and criminal intimidation — Applicant claimed political vendetta and delayed trial.

Previous Decisions:

• Two previous bail applications rejected by the Bombay High Court.

• Third bail application withdrawn.

• Co-accused granted bail by the Sessions Court.

Issues:

• Whether the long incarceration of the applicant violates the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• Whether the applicant poses a threat to witnesses or may tamper with evidence if released on bail.

• Whether the delay in trial justifies granting bail despite the serious nature of allegations.

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) By Applicant:

• Prolonged incarceration without trial commencement.

• No direct evidence linking the applicant to alleged offences.

• Delay in filing the complaint and absence of data from forensic examination.

• Political rivalry and false implications. (b) By Respondent:

• Serious nature of offences and criminal antecedents of the applicant.

• Likelihood of applicant influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence.

• Delay in trial attributed to the accused’s conduct. (c) By Intervenor:

• Applicant’s history of criminal behaviour and political influence.

• Threat to the life and safety of the first informant.

Ratio:

• Bail is the rule; jail is the exception.

• Extended pre-trial detention without trial commencement infringes upon personal liberty.

• Courts must balance individual liberty with societal interests and fair procedure.