In a second bail application, the High Court rejected relief as the earlier application was dismissed on merits without material change in circumstances. However, the Court directed the trial court to dispose of the case within nine months due to its age.
Bail application dismissed; Special Court directed to dispose case within nine months.
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.
11_ba_1010_2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1010 OF 2017
Syed Abid Husain @ Ali Bhai ...Applicant
Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Aniket Vagal for the Applicant. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent -State.
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 10th OCTOBER, 2017.
P.C.:-
This is the second bail application field by this Applicant,
who is facing trial in MCOC Case No.1 of 2006. Said MCOC case arises from Crime No.267 of 2005 registered with Pimpri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 364(A), 387, 403 and 511 r/w. 120 B of the IPC and Section 4(25) of the Arms Act, 1967 and Section 1(i) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999.
Megha
1/5
11_ba_1010_2017.doc
ransom amount of Rs.2 crores for his release. It is alleged that the Applicant and the other co-accused had subsequently committed murder of said Sagar. The aforesaid crime came to be registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by Satinder Sahani, the father of the deceased Sagar. The Applicant was arrested on 29th June, 2007. The crime was investigated and chargesheet was filed and the case being sessions triable was committed to Special Court, Pune. The Applicant had preferred Bail Application No.772 of 2015 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by order dated 5th February, 2016. The reasons for dismissing the said application are recorded in paragraph 6 of the said order.
Megha
2/5
11_ba_1010_2017.doc
was transferred to Hyderabad wherein he was facing trial in 10 other cases. Since the Applicant was transferred to Hyderabad, the trial against the Applicant was separated and the prosecution had proceeded with the trial of the other accused and they have been convicted. He further submits that the co-accused has preferred an Appeal No.244 of 2013 against their convictions and that the record and proceedings were called before this Court. In the absence of the record and proceedings, the trial against the Applicant could not be proceeded. He further submits that the records are now sent back to the Court of Sessions and charge has already been framed and that the trial has already commenced.
Megha
3/5
11_ba_1010_2017.doc
to release his son and that the records reveal that the said call was made from the cell phone of the deceased. The conversation between the caller and the First Informant was recorded. After the arrest of the Applicant, his voice sample was taken and the said voice sample and the recorded conversation were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh. The report of CFSL, Chandigarh prima facie reveals that voice sample of the Applicant tallies with the recorded conversation. Under the circumstances, it was held that the material on record prima facie proves the involvement of the Applicant in committing the crime, which is not only grave but is of heinous nature. The previous application for bail was accordingly dismissed.
Megha
4/5
11_ba_1010_2017.doc
cannot be solely attributed to the prosecution. Furthermore, the charge has now been framed and trial has already commenced before the Special Court at Pune. Considering the above facts, delay per say would not be a ground to grant bail.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Megha
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in trial alone constitutes a ground for granting bail.
Whether a fresh bail application is maintainable after rejection on merits without new changes in circumstances.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Syed Abid Husain
The State of Maharashtra
Anuja Prabhudessai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
