The High Court allowed a bail application filed by two accused persons convicted for offences during trade union activities.
Applicants released on bail on executing bond with sureties, obeying restrictions on movement to specific districts, and reporting to police.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
113.11
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2011 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.481 OF 2004
Adam George Rangrej & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr.Nitin Shejpal with Ms.Pooja Bhojane for Applicants.
Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND
A.R.JOSHI, JJ.
DATED:- MARCH 1, 2011.
P.C.
however, is pressed on the sole argument that the applicants have already undergone ten years and two months of actual imprisonment. For that reason, they should be released on bail, as hearing of the Appeal is unlikely
in the near future.
offence during trade union activities and as per the guidelines of 1992, they will have to undergo total imprisonment of at least 26 years, relying on
2
113.11
these provisions, learned A.P.P. submits that the relief as prayed ought not to be granted in the fact situation of the present case.
3
113.11
detention under the provisions of MPID Act in the year 2001. That, however, cannot be the basis to negate the benefit that would accrue to the applicants on account of having spent more than ten years and two months actual imprisonment and with remission, it would exceed period of twelve years. The apprehension of the learned A.P.P., however, can be addressed by imposing strict conditions on the applicants.
(a) The Applicants - Adam George Rangrej and Edwin George Rangrej are directed to be released on bail in connection with Session Case No.338 of 2001 arising out of C.R. No.375/2000, if not required in any other case, on executing bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(b) The Applicants shall not enter Districts Thane, Mumbai and Raigad during the bail period, except for attending Court matters, if any. However, the applicants shall notify that position in advance to the concerned Police Station where they are expected to report.
113.11
4
(c) The Applicants shall report to the nearest Police Station of their residence on first Monday of every English Calender Month between 9.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon.
(d) The Applicants shall inform their latest place of residence immediately after being released and/or change of residence, if any, from time to time to the Investigating Officer of the local Police Station.
(A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants are entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration in relation to trade union activities.
Whether the guidelines applicable for premature release determine the total sentence period for bail purposes.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Adam George Rangrej
Edwin George Rangrej
State of Maharashtra
A.M. Khanwilkar
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
