[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
Komal S/O Gyaniram Kirnapure vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pos, Ps, … on 8 April, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:3868
1 27apeal735.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2024
APPELLANT Komal s/o Gyaniram Kiranpure,
Aged about 30 years, Occupation:
Agriculturalist, R/o Lohara, Tah. And
District Gondia. (Presently at District
Prison, Bhandara)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station
Dawniwada, Tahsil- Tiroda,
District Gondia.
2. Sau. Sevangan Rajesh Kirsan,
Aged about 31 years, Occu: Labourer,
R/o Lonara, Taluka and District Gondia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.M.Daga, counsel for appellant.
Mr. Anant Ghogre, APP for respondent/State.
Mr.Anirudh Ananthakrishnan, counsel (appointed) for respondent
No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 08/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
rkn
2 27apeal735.2024.odt
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsels appearing for the parties.
3. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has
challenged the order passed by the District Judge-1 and Additional
Sessions Judge, Gondia, by which the application of the present
appellant for grant of bail is rejected. Initially, the appellant had
preferred the appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2024, the
same was withdrawn.
4. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant on
the ground of delay in trial. The appellant is arraigned as an
accused in connection with Crime No. 134/2021 registered with
Police Station Dawaniwada, Tahsil Tiroda, District Gondia for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 201, 302, 364, 324,
504, and 506, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and Section 3(2)
(5), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5)(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per the allegations, the
present appellant and the other co-accused suspected that the
deceased had committed the theft of the motorcycle, and
therefore, he was assaulted, and death of the deceased is caused
rkn
3 27apeal735.2024.odt
by the present appellant and the other co-accused. On the basis of
said report, police have registered the crime against the present
appellant as well as the other co-accused.
5. After registration of the crime, the appellant was
arrested on 04/07/2021, and since then he is behind bar. After
completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet is also submitted
on 17/09/2021.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, who submitted that
though charge-sheet is filed on 17/09/2021, the charges are not
framed, and the trial is not commenced. The appellant can not be
kept behind bar for an indefinite period. He also placed on record,
the Rozanama as well as the report of the Special Judge is also
called, which also shows that the trial is also not commenced.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as the
trial is not commenced, the right of the present appellant as to the
speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is
violated and therefore, he be released on bail.
7. Learned APP strongly opposed for the same and
submitted that, the appellant and the other co-accused in
furtherance of common object formed the unlawful assembly by
rkn
4 27apeal735.2024.odt
suspecting that the deceased has committed the theft of
motorcycle, and assaulted him mercilessly, and caused his death.
Considering the prima-facie material against the present appellant
and in the nature of the direct evidence of eye-witnesses
statement, the application is rightly rejected by the trial Court, and
no interference is called for.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant also endorsed
the same contentions and submitted that considering the prima-
facie material against the present appellant, the appeal is rightly
rejected and therefore, no interference is called for.
9. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the
investigation papers from which it reveals that, there is a direct
evidence collected during the investigation, which shows that the
statements of the eyewitnesses discloses the involvement of the
present appellant in the alleged offence. Except one eyewitness
other eyewitnesses assigned the role to the present appellant to
the extent of assault by fist and kick blows. Whereas one of the
eyewitness assigned the role that she has assaulted by means of
stick. Thus, as far as the involvement is concerned, there is
sufficient material to connect the present appellant with the
rkn
5 27apeal735.2024.odt
alleged offence. The present appeal is preferred mainly on the
ground that there is inordinate delay in trial.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Balwinder Singh
Vs State of Punjab and another in Petition (s) for Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8523/2024 dated 09/09/2024, wherein
incarceration of the accused was for three years and he is released
on bail.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that, time and
again, the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring its earlier decision held
that the right of the speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution is to be protected, and in view of that, the appellant is
to be released on bail.
12. Furthermore, in the case Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs
The State of Maharashtra and another [(2024)9SCC 813], wherein
the aspect of the right of the speedy trial enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution was considered, and it is observed that if the
State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has
no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an
accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
rkn
6 27apeal735.2024.odt
Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should
not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime.
13. In another recent order, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
considered this aspect in the case of in the case of X Vs State of
Rajasthan and another reported in Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 dated 27/11/2024, wherein it is
held that it is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and
that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be
justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of
the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.
14. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court,
and considering the fact that there is delay in trial and in the right
of the present appellant for a speedy trial, in view of the Article 21
of the Constitution infringed and considering the fact that the
applicant cannot be kept behind bar for an indefinite period. In
view of that, appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass the following order;
a] The appeal is allowed.
rkn
7 27apeal735.2024.odt
b] The order passed by the District Judge-1 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia below Exhibit
139 by order dated 23/06/2023 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
c] The appellant – Komal s/o Gyaniram Kiranpure,
shall be released on bail in connection with Crime
No. 134/2021 registered with Police Station
Dawaniwada, Tahsil Tiroda, District Gondia for the
offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 201,
302, 364, 324, 504, and 506, of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860; and Section 3(2)(5), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)
(5)(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on executing
P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety in
the like amount.
d] The appellant shall not enter into the vicinity of
village Lohara, Tahsil and District Gondia till
culmination of the trial.
e] The appellant shall not induce, threat or promise
any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of
rkn
8 27apeal735.2024.odt
the case either personally or by way of electronic
media.
f] The appellant shall attend the proceedings before
the Special Court without seeking any exemption
unless there are exceptional circumstances.
g] The contravention of any of the conditions would
lead his cancellation of bail.
h] The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as
per Rule.
15. The criminal appeal is disposed of.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
[ad_2]
Source link