Allowed

Hiren Pravin Dedhia v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jun 2013BA/777/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Praying for release on bail after 85 days of remand, the applicant challenged the charging offense under Section 304 IPC. The court held that for offences punishable with 10 years imprisonment under IPC Section 304 Part II, detention cannot exceed 60 days. Consequently, the applicant was mandatorily entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount, or two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Hiren Pravin Dedhia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

904-BA-777-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.777 OF 2013

¶5

HIREN PRAVIN DEDHIA )...APPLICANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. )...RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr.R. Sathyanarayanan Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

Mrs.G.P.Mulekar APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 26^th JUNE, 2013.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 The applicant is the sole accused in C.R.No.137 of 2013, registered at Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai. He is the proprietor of “Mahi Industries” and has his factory at K.K.Compound, Khairani Road. A blast / explosion took place in the factory, which resulted in damage to several galas in the building where the factory is situate, and also resulted in the death of 7 persons. On the basis that the applicant is responsible for causing the explosion / blast, a case against him has been registered alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶11

avk 1/4

¶12

904-BA-777-2013

¶13

2 The applicant was arrested on 2.4.2013. He was produced before the learned Magistrate on 3.4.2013, and has been remanded into custody from time to time by the Magistrate.

¶14

3 It is submitted before me that the case would be in respect of an offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. It is submitted that the allegation of the applicant having committed an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC is not very sound.

¶15

4 Simply because seven persons have died in the offence, the offence cannot be treated as one punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. It would all depend on the mens rea on the part of the applicant. However, in the circumstances of the case, I do not wish to go deeper into the matter and consider whether prima facie the offence allegedly committed by the applicant could be one punishable under Section 304A of the IPC and not under Section 304 of the IPC simplicitor.

¶16

5 The investigating agency has chosen to keep it vague whether the offence would fall in the first part of Section 304 IPC or in the second part. However, it cannot be seriously contended that even if the offence is held to be one punishable under Section 304 IPC, it would squarely be covered by Part II thereof.

¶17

6 The offence punishable under Part II thereof is punishable with maximum imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine.

¶18

avk 2/4

¶19

904-BA-777-2013

¶20

7 The applicant is already in custody for more than 85 days. Admittedly, investigation is not yet complete and no charge-sheet has been filed in the matter.

¶21

8 The question is whether the applicant would be governed by the Clause (a)(i) of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code), or whether he would be governed by Clause a(ii) thereof. In other words, whether the detention of the applicant pending investigation can be for a maximum period of 90 days, or whether it should be for a maximum period of 60 days, is the question.

¶22

9 In this regard, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on a decision of a Division Bench of this court. In the case of Nizamuddin Mohammad Bashir khan vs. State of Maharashtra LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-167 , the question as to the interpretation of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code, was specifically referred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench, after considering a number of pronouncements of this court, of some other High courts, and also of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi, AIR 2001 SC 2369 , came to the conclusion that where the offence would be punishable with a maximum term of imprisonment for 10 years, then, the maximum period during which detention in custody pending investigation can be authorized would be 60 days and not 90 days . In that case, the applicant before the High court was accused of an offence punishable under Section 366 of the

¶23

avk 3/4

¶24

904-BA-777-2013

¶25

IPC, which offence is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to 10 years. The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the present case.

¶26

10 Under these circumstances, even on the basis that the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, of the IPC, the applicant would be entitled to be released on bail mandatorily.

¶27

11 The application is allowed.

¶28

12 The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each.

¶29

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶30

avk 4/4

Hiren Pravin Dedhia v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiren Pravin Dedhia v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaya Talakshi Chheda Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Appasaheb Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prasad Chandrakant Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Paresh Kapadia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Damodar Salvi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravikant Umakant Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra