State Exhibits Mindset & Intent To Curtail Liberty Despite Accused Having Undergone Maximum Punishment: Bombay HC Criticizes State
The Bombay High Court, while granting bail to an Accused, has expressed its criticism towards the resistance of the State while contesting bail petition despite consistent views of the Supreme Court on pre-trial bail.
The Division Bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale observed, “We are disheartened to note that despite the consistent view of the Apex Court on the subject of pre-trial bail and some of the decisions which we have relied upon in this judgment, the State exhibits a mindset and intent to continue to curtail the liberty of the Petitioner despite having undergone the maximum punishment in majority of the offences alleged against him.”
Advocate Subhash Jha appeared for the Doctor whereas Special Public Prosecutor Sandeep Karnik and APP VN Sagare appeared for the Respondents.
An FIR was registered against the Accused for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 2 and 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (“MPID Act”).
The Counsel for the Accused submitted that the Accused had already undergone the maximum sentence for offences punishable under the MPID Act and under Section 420 of the I.P.C. He vehemently argued that even a day of further incarceration of the Petitioner is a gross violation of his right to life and liberty.
The Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and admittedly the Petitioner had already undergone incarceration of seven and half years. It noted that there was a list of 37 witnesses given by the prosecution agency to be examined during the trial and it was unlikely that the trial would be expeditiously completed in the near future.
The Supreme Court had also passed orders in the present petition directing the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the present Petition.
While relying on a recent decision by the Apex Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2024 SC), The High Court held, “We are unable to appreciate the vociferous resistance of the State in contesting the bail plea of the Petitioner. In this regard, the views expressed by the Supreme Court in its decision in the matter of Javed Sheikh (supra) are significant. … To assail the correctness of our Order in the Apex Court is constitutional right, but in a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a Police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other. Admittedly, charges have been framed way back on 5th November 2022 and the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace. In these circumstances, we urge the State to have a relook at Paragraph 19 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Javed Shaikh’s case reproduced by us in paragraph 21 of this Judgment. We say no more.”
Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the Accused.
Cause Title: Kartik Mohan Prasad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Subhash Jha, Samir Vaidya, Neha Balani, Komol Thakur and Apeksha Sharma.
Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor Sandeep Karnik and APP VN Sagare.
