Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Santosh Pralhad Waghmare, was arrested on 26 March 2017 in connection with C.R. No.76 of 2017 registered at Hill Line Police Station for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The incident occurred on the same day between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., where the applicant, a friend of the victim, called the victim out of his house. A quarrel ensued, and the victim was found injured on the road with stab wounds, later succumbing to his injuries. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen theory. The applicant had been incarcerated for 7 years, 10 months and 12 days as an undertrial, and the trial had not yet commenced. The applicant filed the present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, primarily on the ground of long incarceration and the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned APP opposed the bail citing the gravity of the offence. The court, after hearing both sides, considered the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that the right to speedy justice is a fundamental right. The court noted that the applicant was 27 years old at the time of the incident and had been languishing in jail for over 7 years without trial. Relying on precedents including In Re: Nagendra Nath Chakravarti (1924 Cri LJ 732) and Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson (AIR 1931 ALL 356), and the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the court held that the long incarceration and the fact that the trial had not commenced warranted the grant of bail. The court allowed the bail application, directing the applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties, and imposed conditions including not tampering with evidence, not leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and attending trial regularly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Long Incarceration - Section 439 CrPC, 1973 - Article 21 Constitution of India - Applicant incarcerated for 7 years, 10 months and 12 days as an undertrial; trial not commenced; held that right to speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 outweighs gravity of offence; bail granted with conditions (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Bail - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Sections 302, 201 IPC - Prosecution case based on last seen theory; held that complicity of applicant is to be determined at trial; long incarceration justifies bail (Paras 5-6). C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Discretion of High Court - Section 439 CrPC, 1973 - High Court's discretion unfettered; bail is rule, refusal is exception; reliance on Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 ALL 356 (Paras 12-13). D) Constitutional Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 Constitution of India - Undertrial prisoner incarcerated for over 7 years without trial; held that right to speedy justice is fundamental; bail granted (Paras 7, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration and right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, despite the gravity of the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
Final Decision
Bail Application No.180 of 2024 is allowed. Applicant Santosh Pralhad Waghmare be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.25,000 with one or two sureties. Conditions: not tamper with evidence, not leave jurisdiction without court permission, attend trial regularly, and not commit similar offences.
Law Points
- Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
- Right to speedy trial under Article 21
- Long incarceration as ground for bail
- Presumption of innocence
- Circumstantial evidence and last seen theory
