The Bombay High Court, granted bail to the accused involved in a double murder case related to the 2018 killing of Ajay and Dhirendra Patel. The accused had been in custody for over four years without significant progress in the trial. The court acknowledged the serious nature of the offense but emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21. The court also noted that circumstantial evidence against Patel needed to be further corroborated at trial. Considering the slow pace of the trial, the court granted bail with strict conditions to prevent any interference with the ongoing legal process.

1. Introduction of Case and Parties Involved
   The accused Vipul Amrutlal Patel sought bail in connection with the 2018 murders of Ajay and Dhirendra Patel in Daman. The trial had commenced but was progressing slowly with only three witnesses examined so far.

2. Facts of the Case
   The incident occurred on April 1, 2018, when the victims were shot at a bar in Silvassa. Eyewitnesses reported seeing multiple assailants, but initial identification was difficult due to unknown identities.

3. Role of the Accused
   Patel was implicated as a conspirator due to his alleged involvement in providing financial aid to the families of the arrested accused and managing transactions for the main conspirator, Suresh Patel.

4. Prosecution's Evidence
   The prosecution highlighted evidence such as entries made by Vipul in financial records related to the conspiracy, witness statements, and circumstantial connections to the crime.

5. Defense Arguments
   The defense argued that the accused was merely an employee following the instructions of his employer, Suresh Patel, without knowledge of the murder conspiracy. The defense also emphasized the delay in the trial.

6. Prolonged Detention and Right to Speedy Trial
   The court acknowledged that the accused had been in custody for over four years, and the trial had seen minimal progress, with the prosecution proposing to examine 70 more witnesses. The right to a speedy trial was cited as a critical reason for granting bail.

7. Confessional Statement and Its Legal Impact
   A significant issue discussed was the confessional statement of co-accused Rashid Murtaza, who had passed away, making the statement inadmissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act due to the absence of a joint trial.

8. Court's Conclusion and Bail Decision
   The court noted that the evidence against the accused was largely circumstantial and that prolonged detention without a clear timeline for trial completion violated constitutional rights. Bail was granted with strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Right to a speedy trial.
• Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act: Use of confessions in joint trials.
• Sections 164, 306, and 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Procedures related to confessional statements and accomplice testimony.

Ratio (Legal Reasoning): The court balanced the seriousness of the offense with the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. Given that the trial had seen significant delays and there was no substantive evidence directly linking Patel to the crime, bail was deemed appropriate. The confessional statement of a deceased co-accused could not be used against Patel, and the circumstantial evidence alone did not justify continued detention.

Subjects:

• Bail Application
• Criminal Law
• Murder Trial
• Right to Speedy Trial
• Indian Constitution Article 21
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Indian Evidence Act Section 30