In its order dated 22.04.2024, the Bombay High court rejected the bail application of the accused asked on the ground of long incarceration. The High Court sent the matter to the trial court to decide the case on merits, unaffected by any observation made by the appellate court.
The case involves gang rape of a minor child. The accused was made liable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3), 376-D and 376-DA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant filed an application before the High Court claiming that Applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1-State contended that bail application should be rejected as the applicant is allegedly guilty of a grievous offence. She argued that the applicant should be punished as prescribed under Section 376-DA of IPC which is imprisonment for life.
In this case, the Applicant was incarcerated since 31.10.2020 and there is no progress in trial of the case till date. Also, Section 436-A of the CrPC suggests that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him or her on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties. But there is no standard formula to calculate the period long incarceration.
The High Court relied on the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court held that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail and observed that in the present case therefore, no case can be made out for grant of bail even on the ground of prolonged incarceration.
The court ordered to appoint an advocate for Respondent No. 2 to represent their case. The court observed that, it is clearly evident from the conduct of the victim that they are getting influenced by the accused because the Respondent No.2 along with the victim consented for the bail of the accused.
The High Court requested the trial court that the trial should be concluded expeditiously within a period of 9 months from the date of the order and disposed of the bail application. The direction was issued as it is a gang rape case and the applicants are trying to influence the victim and other respondents as well as they were also tampering with the evidence. The court clarified that the Trial Court shall decide the case on its merits, uninfluenced by the prima facie observations made in the order passed by the High Court.
CASE NAME: SOMNATH BHIVAJI GAIKWAD (APPELLANT) V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR., CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1443 OF 2023.
NAME: SHUBHI SRIVASTAVA, COURSE: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), COLLEGE: JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments