Allowed

Shravankumar Ghutar Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Apr 2024BA/217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to an applicant incarcerated for over seven years in a murder case (IPC 302) where the charge was not yet framed. Relying on the right to speedy trial under Article 21, the Court directed release on furnishing personal bonds with sureties, imposing standard conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bonds of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions regarding cooperation and non-interference.

Shravankumar Ghutar Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

25-BA-217-2024.DOC

¶2

2024:BHC-AS:15654

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.217 OF 2024

¶6

Shravankumar Ghutar Choudhari …Applicant
Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra…Respondent

¶8

Ms. Manisha Jadhav i/b. Mr. S. K. Kamble, Advocates, for the
Applicant.

¶9

Mr. Sameer M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 2^nd APRIL 2024

¶11

P. C.:

¶12

1. Heard Ms. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr.

¶13

Mangaonkar, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶14

2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439

¶15

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). The relevant

¶16

details are as follows:-

¶17

`1.C. R. No.`	`133 of 2017`
`2.Date of registration of F.I.R.`	`11/03/2017`
`3.Name of Police Station`	`Tulinj, District-Palghar`
`4.Section/s invoked`	`302, 323 and 504 of the` `Indian Penal Code, 1860`
`5.Date of incident`	`11/03/2017`

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

Sonali

¶20

25-BA-217-2024.DOC

¶21

6.Date of arrest11/03/2017
7.Date of filing of Charge-sheet08/06/2017

¶22

3.As per the prosecution case, in the morning on 11th March
2017 some scuffle occurred between the Applicant and the
deceased, as the deceased expressed his opinion that the Applicant
had not flushed the toilet after attending nature’s call but the
Applicant insisted that he had flushed the toilet after attending
nature’s call. The neighbours stopped the said scuffle. However,
thereafter again the deceased started abusing the Applicant and at
that time, the Applicant assaulted the deceased with a kitchen
knife.

¶23

4.Ms. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
the incident in question occurred on the spur of the moment. She
submitted that there was no intention to commit the said crime.
She submitted that the Applicant was arrested on 11th March 2017
and that there is no further progress in the trial till date and even
the charge is also not framed yet. She therefore, submitted that the
Applicant is entitled to be released on bail as there is a violation of
his fundamental right to speedy trial.

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

Sonali

¶26

25-BA-217-2024.DOC

¶27

5.On the other hand, Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP for the
Respondent-State strongly opposed the Bail Application. He
submitted that the Applicant has mercilessly assaulted the
deceased with a knife. He submitted that there are 3 eye-witnesses
to the incident and their statements are also recorded under
Section 164 of the CrPC. He therefore, submitted that the Bail
Application be rejected. After taking instructions, he submitted that
there are no criminal antecedents against the Applicant.

¶28

6.Prima facie, there is substance in the contention of the
learned Counsel for the Applicant that the incident in question
occurred on the spur of the moment.

¶29

7.Perusal of the record shows that in the present case, the
incident in question occurred on 11th March 2017, F.I.R. was
lodged on 11th March 2017, the Applicant was arrested on 11th
March 2017 and, Charge-sheet was filed on 8th June 2017. There is
no progress in the trial and even the charge is also not framed yet.
As per the Charge-sheet, there are 17 witnesses proposed to be
examined by the prosecution. The trial is unlikely to conclude any
time soon and is likely to take a considerably long time.

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

Sonali

¶32

25-BA-217-2024.DOC

¶33

8.The Applicant is incarcerated since more than 7 years.
Speedy trial is one of the facets of right to life and liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy
trial is an essential ingredient of “reasonable, fair and just”
procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional
obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure
speedy trial to the Accused.1Therefore, the Applicant is entitled for
bail.

¶34

9. The Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.

¶35

10. The Applicant does not appear to be at risk of flight.

¶36

11.Accordingly, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by
imposing conditions.

¶37

12. In view thereof, the following order:-

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

(a) The Applicant - Shravankumar Ghutar Choudhari be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.133 of

¶40

1 Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

Sonali

¶43

25-BA-217-2024.DOC

¶44

2017 registered with the Tulinj Police Station, District-
Palghar on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/-
with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶45

(b)On being released on bail, the Applicant shall furnish
his cell phone number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated,
in case of any change thereto.

¶46

(c)The Applicant shall report to the Tulinj Police Station,
District - Paghar as and when called by the
Investigating Officer.

¶47

(d)The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade
such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or
to any Police personnel.

¶48

(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution

¶49

evidence and shall not contact or influence the

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

Sonali

¶52

25-BA-217-2024.DOC

¶53

Complainant or any witness in any manner.

¶54

(f) The Applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The Applicant shall co-operate with the Trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments thereat.

¶55

(g) The Applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to

¶56

the Investigating Officer.

¶57

13. The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶58

14.It is clarified that the observations made herein are prima
facie, and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶59

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶60

Signed by: Sonali Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/04/2024 09:37:23

¶61

Page 6 of 6

¶62

Sonali

Shravankumar Ghutar Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravankumar Ghutar Choudhari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rachit Deviprasad Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra

Jerry Varghese International Ltd. vs Mathew Yohannan and Anr.

Ankit Kumar Ashok Pandey Vs State of Maharashtra

Dayalal M. Vaidya vs Kirtikumar Futurmal Jain and Anr.

Yusuf Mohammad Ali Surve Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dagu @Nivrutti Yadav Pardhi Vs State of Maharashtra