Criminal Bail Application dismissing request to enlarge bail pending charges in a vandalism and money extortion case, citing pandemic delays and Supreme Court dismissal of related SLP.
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.
14- bast-1811.20.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.1811 OF 2020
Shrinivas @ Shinu G. Pillay
V/s.
…Applicant
State of Maharashtra…Respondent
Mr. Kuldeep Patil I/b. Mr. Siddheshwar Biradar, for the Applicant.
Ms. P.P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM:SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATED: 21st DECEMBER 2020.
P.C. :
1.The applicant is in custody since 22nd July 2016 in Special
Case No.1 of 2017. This is subsequently a third application filed before
this Court seeking enlargement on bail. The application was rejected
on 13th February 2018 and liberty was granted to the applicant to
challenge the applicability of the provisions of MCOCA. The learned
counsel for the applicant submits that the application seeking
discharge was filed before the Special Court which was rejected on 19th
July 2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant had filed
Criminal Appeal No.1421 of 2018 which was rejected by the Division
Bench (Coram : Indrajit Mahanty and A.M. Badar, JJ.). The Division
1 of 3
pmw
14- bast-1811.20.docx
Bench has observed that the applicant herein i.e. Shrinivas @ Shinu
along with the co-accused used to regularly collect money from the
resident as well as the shopkeepers by wielding weapons and
threatening them. Upon perusal of the charge sheet, the Hon’ble
Division Bench had rejected the said appeal on 25th July 2019. The
applicant had then filed Criminal Bail Application No.1320 of 2019
seeking enlargement of bail and this Court by order dated 16th
September 2019 had directed the Special Court, Pune to frame the
charges in Special Case No.1 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible and
commence the recording of evidence within one month from the date
of framing charge.
2.Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant had filed
Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble the Apex Court and the same
was dismissed vide order dated 14th November 2019.
3In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to
consider the prayer for enlargement on bail on the ground that the
trial is delayed. In fact, one or the other proceeding was pending
before the High Court and the Supreme Court. Since March 2020, due
to outbreak of pandemic, the trials could not proceed.
2 of 3
pmw
14- bast-1811.20.docx
4The learned counsel upon instructions submits that till
today, the charge is not framed. There is huge pendency of trials before
the Sessions Court, Pune. However, in any case, the learned Sessions
Court shall frame charges before 31st March 2021 and as far as possible
conclude the recording of evidence within one year from the date of
framing of charges. Application is accordingly dismissed.
Digitally signed by Pallavi M. Pallavi M. Wargaonkar Wargaonkar Date: 2020.12.22 16:54:17 +0530
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
3 of 3
pmw
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be enlarged on grounds of trial delay and pandemic hesitancy.
Whether Special Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 2017 requires immediate framing of charges to facilitate bail release.
Shrinivas @ Shinu G. Pillay
State of Maharashtra
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court