Allowed

Prakashsingh Chandansingh Bayas v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Feb 2024BA/333/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an applicant charged with murder and arms offences. Despite opposition from the prosecution citing trekling antecedents and pending inquiries, the judge granted bail based on the applicant's incarceration exceeding nine years and the examination of material witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties in the like amount.

Prakashsingh Chandansingh Bayas Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

2024:BHC-AS:9353

29-ba-333-24.docx

Darshan Patil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 333 OF 2024

¶6

PRAKASHSINGH CHANDANSINGH BAYAS ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶7

Adv. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar i/b Adv. Abhishek Arote a/w Adv. Harshvardhan M. Pawar for the Applicant. Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : FEBRUARY 27, 2024

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶12

2. This is an application for bail in respect of the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under sections 3(1) and 25 of the Arms Act registered on 10/12/2014 vide C.R. No. 530 of 2014 with Nigadi police station, Pune.

¶13

3. On 13/12/2023, in respect of the co-accused this

1/5

29-ba-333-24.docx

Darshan Patil

Court had passed following order while enlarging the

¶18

applicants therein on bail:

¶19

“1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State.

¶20

This is an application for bail in respect of the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under sections 3(1) and 25 of the Arms Act registered on 10/12/2014 vide C.R. No. 530 of 2014 with Nigadi police station, Pune.

¶21

On merits, the order dated 04/05/2023 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 1148 of 2023 in respect of the co-accused-Sunil Ramdas Suryavanshi will squarely apply to the present applicants also. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:

¶22

“3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent – State.\

¶23

The bail is sought on the ground of prolonged incarceration as an under-trial prisoner.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail for about 8 years and 6 months. It is submitted that this Court vide order dated 10 February 2017 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1984 of 2016 directed the trial Court to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within twelve months. It is submitted that inspite of it, the prosecution has examined only few witnesses and therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude in near future.

¶25

On the other hand, learned APP submits that the trial has commenced and the prosecution has already examined four witnesses. It is submitted that endeavour will be made to complete the examination of the prosecution witnesses within three months.

2/5

29-ba-333-24.docx

Darshan Patil

In view of the order passed by this Court, the trial ought to have been over in the year 2018 itself. The applicant is in jail for about 8 years and 6 months and there are no other criminal antecedents. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.”

¶30

Learned APP while opposing the application for bail submitted that there are criminal antecedents reported against the applicant no.1 – Amol Narayan Shinde. In my opinion, considering the long incarceration, antecedents by itself should not be a factor to deprive the applicant the facility of bail. In any case, one antecedent is reported under Gambling Act. The trial is likely to take some time to conclude. I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.”

¶31

4. The applicant was arrested on 26/12/2014 and is incarcerated for a period of more than 9 years. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution proposes to examine 62 witnesses and at present, only 17 witnesses have been examined.

¶32

5. Learned APP opposed the application and submitted that the trial is at the fag end and that only the Investigating Officer remains to be examined.

¶33

6. The trial is likely to take some time to conclude. Considering that the applicant is in custody for more than 9 years as an undertrial and that the material witnesses are

¶34

3/5

¶35

Darshan Patil 29-ba-333-24.docx

¶36

already examined, now there is no possibility of tampering with the witnesses. The applicant does not appear to be a flight risk. On the ground of long incarceration, I am inclined to enlarge the present applicant on bail despite the opposition of the learned APP. Hence, the following order :-

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

(a) The application is allowed.

¶39

(b) The applicant- Prakashsingh Chandansingh Bayas in connection with C.R. No.530 of 2014 registered with Nigadi Police Station shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶40

(c) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer of Nigadi police station once in a week, every Sunday, between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till the trial concludes

¶41

(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 him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (e) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to

4/5

29-ba-333-24.docx

Darshan Patil

the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

¶46

(f) The applicant shall not leave Pune District after being released on bail, till the trial concludes.

¶47

(g) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶48

(h) The applicant shall surrender his passport to the investigating officer. If the applicant does not have a passport, the applicant shall file an affidavit before the trial Court to that effect.

¶49

7. The application is disposed of.

¶50

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶51

5/5

¶52

Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/02/2024 19:45:12

Prakashsingh Chandansingh Bayas v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakashsingh Chandansingh Bayas v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Chandrakant Bhoir Vs State of Maharashtra at the Instance of Senior Inspector of Police

Rajesh Vithaldas Gajra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gautam Shivkant Choudhary Vs State of Maharashtra

Anuj Kashish Jain Vs Kashish Virendrakumar Jain and Ors.

Anuj Kashish Jain Vs Kashish Virendrakumar Jain and Ors.

Amit Anand Shetty and Ors. Vs Nivedita Amit Shetty and Ors.