The Court acknowledged the Applicant’s long incarceration and the fundamental right to speedy justice. It noted that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and observed the absence of any likelihood of the trial’s completion in the near future. Therefore, the Court granted bail subject to specific conditions, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Conditions for Bail:
a) Furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.
b) Monthly reporting to the Investigating Officer for the first three months post-release.
c) Cooperation with the trial process and regular court attendance unless exempted.
d) Prohibition from leaving the State of Maharashtra without court permission.
e) Non-interference with witnesses or evidence.
f) Keeping the Investigating Officer informed of his address and contact details.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India (COI) – Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439 – Special Powers of High Court or Court of Session for Grant of Bail

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Punishment for Murder – Section 201 – Causing Disappearance of Evidence of Offence or Giving False Information to Screen Offender

• Bombay Police Act, 1951 – Section 37(1) – Prohibitory Orders – Section 135 – Penalty for Contravention of Orders under Section 37

Subjects:
Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Speedy Trial – Personal Liberty – Fundamental Right – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Article 21 – Presumption of Innocence

Nature of the Litigation:
Criminal Appeal – Bail Application No.180 of 2024 filed under Section 439 of CrPC seeking bail due to long incarceration and delayed trial.

Applicant’s Request:
The Applicant sought bail on the grounds of prolonged detention of 7 years, 10 months, and 12 days without the commencement of the trial, invoking his fundamental right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the COI.

Reason for Filing the Case:
The Applicant was arrested on 26.03.2017 in connection with C.R. No.76 of 2017 registered with Hill Line Police Station for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The case was based on circumstantial evidence and the “last seen” theory.

Previous Decisions:
Earlier bail applications filed by the Applicant had been rejected, and the current application was pending for one year without hearing before the High Court.

Issues:
Whether the Applicant’s prolonged incarceration without trial violated his right to speedy justice and warranted bail despite the gravity of the offence.

Submissions/Arguments:
a) Applicant’s Counsel: Argued that the Applicant’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the COI was being violated due to his prolonged detention without the trial’s commencement. Cited judicial precedents emphasizing the importance of bail as the rule and jail as the exception.
b) Respondent’s Counsel: Opposed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and the circumstantial evidence against the Applicant.

Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention of nearly 8 years without trial commencement violated the Applicant’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the COI. The principle of presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial were deemed paramount.