Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vaibhav Subhash Raut, was arrested in connection with CR No. 11 of 2018 registered at Kalachowki Police Station for alleged offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Explosives Act, 1884, the Indian Penal Code, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). He was accused of being a member of Sanatan Sanstha, an organization allegedly aiming to form a 'Hindu Rashtra' through terrorist activities, including collecting and storing crude bombs. The appellant had been in custody for over 5 years. He filed a criminal appeal seeking bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court and this Court, and on the ground of long incarceration with no likelihood of early trial. The prosecution opposed bail, citing recovery of a diary with handwriting matching the appellant's and recovery of crude bombs from his house and a godown. The Court, after hearing both sides, noted that co-accused Avinash Anant Pawar @ Ajit Dada had been granted bail by the Supreme Court after 4 years of incarceration, and co-accused Liladhar @ Vijay Lodhi and Pratap Judhisthir Hajra had been granted bail by this Court. The Court observed that the appellant had been in custody for over 5 years and the trial was not likely to conclude soon. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant on certain conditions, including furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties, not tampering with evidence, not contacting witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 18, 20 - Parity - Long Incarceration - The appellant sought bail on the ground that co-accused had been granted bail by the Supreme Court and this Court, and that he had been in custody for over 5 years with no prospect of early trial. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to bail on parity and due to long incarceration, noting that the trial was not likely to conclude soon. (Paras 3-7)
B) Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 18, 20 - Recovery of Explosives - The prosecution alleged recovery of 8 crude bombs from the appellant's house and 12 from a godown, but the appellant argued that the house and godown were not in his name and recovery was not under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court did not delve into merits but granted bail primarily on parity and incarceration grounds. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on grounds of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail, and on the ground of long incarceration without likelihood of early conclusion of trial.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties. The appellant shall not tamper with evidence, contact witnesses, or leave the country without permission. Bail before the trial court.
Law Points
- Bail under UAPA
- Parity with co-accused
- Long incarceration
- No likelihood of early trial
- Recovery of crude bombs
- Handwriting expert opinion
- Section 27 Evidence Act
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 65
Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2023
Revati Mohite Dere, Gauri Godse
Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Mr. Aniket Pardeshi, Mr. K. V. Saste
The State of Maharashtra (ATS)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against rejection of bail in a case involving offences under the Explosive Substances Act, Explosives Act, IPC, and UAPA.
Remedy Sought
Enlargement on bail by the appellant (accused no. 2) in connection with CR No. 11 of 2018.
Filing Reason
The appellant was in custody for over 5 years and sought bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, and on the ground of long incarceration with no likelihood of early trial.
Previous Decisions
Co-accused Avinash Anant Pawar @ Ajit Dada was granted bail by the Supreme Court on 11th August 2022. Co-accused Liladhar @ Vijay Lodhi and Pratap Judhisthir Hajra were granted bail by this Court on 23rd March 2023.
Issues
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail?
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration and no likelihood of early conclusion of trial?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel argued that co-accused had been granted bail by the Supreme Court and this Court, and the appellant had been in custody for over 5 years with no prospect of early trial. On merits, she submitted that the house and godown from which bombs were recovered were not in the appellant's name, and the diary recovery was not corroborated.
Prosecution opposed bail, submitting that a diary was recovered at the instance of the appellant and handwriting expert opined it was his handwriting. However, the prosecution did not dispute that bombs were also recovered from co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi
Bail can be granted on the ground of parity when co-accused have been granted bail on similar facts, and also on the ground of long incarceration where there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial, even in cases under the UAPA.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By this appeal, the appellant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with CR No. 11 of 2018 registered with Kalachowki Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of The Explosives Substances Act, 1908; Section 9(B) of The Explosives Act, 1884; Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; and section 16, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act,1967.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks bail on the ground of parit, on merits and on the ground of long incarceration of the appellant.
Learned APP opposed the grant of bail.
Perused the papers with the assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties.
Procedural History
The appellant was arrested in connection with CR No. 11 of 2018. He filed a bail application which was rejected. He then filed Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court. The appeal was admitted and taken up for final disposal by consent. The Court heard arguments and delivered judgment on 20th September 2023, granting bail.
Acts & Sections
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908: 4, 5
- Explosives Act, 1884: 9(B)
- Indian Penal Code: 120-B
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: 16, 18, 20
