Allowed

Sandeep Palsingh Parcha v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Dec 2023BA/1228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case, holding that the trial's extreme delay and four-year incarceration violated the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Stringent conditions were imposed upon release.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed. Applicant to be released on P.R. bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, subject to numerous conditions including regular reporting and area ban.

Sandeep Palsingh Parcha Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

(1)BA-1228-2023.doc

¶2

rajshree

¶3

Digitally signed by RAJSHREE RAJSHREE KISHOR KISHOR MORE MORE Date: 2023.12.11 10:14:57 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1228 OF 2023

¶7

Sandeep Palsingh Parcha ] .. Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ] .. Respondent

¶8

Mr.Nitin Sejpal a/w Pooja Sejpal and Akshara Desai, for the Applicant. Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶10

DATE : 7^th December, 2023.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1] This is the third Bail Application filed on the ground of long period of incarceration of the Applicant, as it is the submission of Mr.Sejpal that on two occasions, the Court declined to release the Applicant on bail on the ground of seriousness of the incident, in the wake of the material compiled in the charge sheet.

¶13

2] It is the submission of Mr. Sejpal that there is also a cross case which emanates out of the complaint filed by the opposite group, and

¶14

even this trial is also listed before the same Judge who is trying Sessions Case No.15/2020. Despite the trial having been expedited it is the submission of Mr. Sejpal, that the position as on today i.e. after

¶15

1/3

¶16

(1)BA-1228-2023.doc

¶17

four years of his arrest is, that the first witness is in the box. The prosecution has cited 42 witnesses and considering the number of witnesses, one can imagine the time taken to conclude the trial.

¶18

3] Right of speedy trial has been recognized as an inherent aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and every accused apart from, fair trial is entitled to the same. The Applicant cannot be incarcerated indefinitely and particularly in a case where it can be seen that the trial is being conducted with a snail speed in the FIR which is registered in the year 2019 and down the line of four years, only one witness is under examination.

¶19

4] Hence, though I have expressed my disinclination on the earlier occasions to release the Applicant on bail on the ground of seriousness of the charges, on the ground of long incarceration and likelihood of trial not being concluded in the shortest possible time, by imposing certain stringent conditions upon the Applicant, I deem it appropriate to enlarge him on bail. Hence the following order :

¶20

ORDER

¶21

a. Bail Application is allowed.

¶22

b. The Applicant Sandeep Palsingh Parcha shall be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.342 of 2019 (Sessions Case No.15/2020) registered with Tilaknagar Police Station on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of

¶23

2/3

¶24

(1)BA-1228-2023.doc

¶25

Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount.

¶26

c. The applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station on first Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon.

¶27

d. The Applicant shall not enter the area of Vidyavihar (East), Mumbai, during the pendency of the trial and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court and shall not tamper with evidence.

¶28

e. The Applicant shall regularly attend trial, on every date, unless he is exempted and on any two consecutive defaults, the prosecution shall be at liberty to bring the said aspect to the notice of the Sessions Judge.

¶29

f. Upon release, the Applicant shall furnish his contact numbers and permanent residential addresses to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in case of change in the same.

¶30

[BHARATI DANGRE, J]

¶31

3/3

Sandeep Palsingh Parcha v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Palsingh Parcha v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vrushant Wadke vs State of Maharashtra and 23 Ors.

Integro Finserv Private Limited vs Vineet Singh Construction Private Limited

Vaswani Projects Private Limited vs Haresh Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

Transasia Bio-Medicals Limited vs Apoorva Diagnostic and Health Care

Guinea Global Nx Builders and Developers vs Jai Anant Sagar Chsl and 26 Ors.

Mahindrabhai Shankarbhai Amin through Its Poa Yogesh Mahindrabhai Amin vs Daxa Maghraj Golechha