Sachin Hindurao Waze vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

Sachin Hindurao Waze vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner to be enlarged on bail in respect of Special Case No.568 of 2022, on such terms and conditions as the learned Special Judge shall impose; the petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty reserved to raise and agitate the constitutionality of Section 306(4)(b) of the Cr. P. C. if and when any occasion arises.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who remained in custody although the co-accused had already been enlarged on bail, should be released on bail in connection with Special Case No.568 of 2022. +1 more

Court's answer

Given the peculiar circumstances and the Additional Solicitor General's opening statement that the respondents had no objection to the grant of bail, the Court directed the petitioner's release on bail subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the learned Special Judge when dealing with Special Case No.568 of 2022, since the bail is to operate during the pendency of that case.

Ratio / Principle

The Court clarified that the bail granted operates only in the context of Special Case No.568 of 2022 and provides no basis for the petitioner seeking his release in any other case for which he is in custody.

Key takeaways

Now that bail was granted pending Special Case No.568 of 2022, the Court permitted the petition to be withdrawn and disposed of it as withdrawn, reserving the petitioner's liberty to raise and agitate the constitutionality of Section 306(4)(b) of the Cr. P. C. if and when any occasion arises; the constitutionality question was not adjudicated in this petition.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.; 22 October 2024) disposed of Sachin Hindurao Waze's Writ Petition No.787 of 2024 as withdrawn after directing his release on bail confined to Special Case No.568 of 2022. The direction followed the Additional Solicitor General's statement that the respondents had no objection to the petitioner being enlarged on bail given the peculiar facts and circumstances, with the co-accused already enlarged on bail and the petitioner remaining in custody owing to a bail rejection by the Trial Court in another criminal case. Conditions of release were left to the learned Special Judge, and the Court expressly clarified that this bail conferred no entitlement to release in any other case. Counsel had invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr. P. C., citing Arnab Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 2021 SC 1. The question of the constitutionality of Section 306(4)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was deliberately not decided; liberty was reserved to raise it if and when any occasion arises.

2024:BHC-AS:42109-DB

ppn 901.wp-787.24.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.787 OF 2024

Sachin Hindurao Waze ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sajal Yadav, Mr. Shalabh K. Saxena, Mr. Rounak Naik, Mr. Harsh Ghangurde, Mr. Aayushya Geruja, Mr. Raj Raut, Mr. Nihal Rebello and Ms. Dakshata Dupare for Petitioner. Mr. Rahul Tiwari, Ms. Akanksha Mishra and Ms. Tripti Tiwari for UOI.

Mr. Raja Thakare, Additional Solicitor General (through VC), Mr. Kuldeep Patil, Mr., Siddharth Jagushte, Mr. Akash Kavade for CBI.

Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State.

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 22 October 2024.

PC.:-

Heard Mr. Ponda, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Raja Thakare, Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

Mr. Thakare learned that the Additional Solicitor General of India states that the respondents have no objection to the petitioner being enlarged on bail due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Mr. Thakare submitted that the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, and the petitioner is in custody due to

1 of 3

ppn 901.wp-787.24.docx

his involvement in another criminal case for which the Trial Court has rejected his bail application.

Mr. Thakare submitted that the Constitutionality of Section 306(4)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P. C.) may not be considered in this matter now that the respondents have no objection to the petitioner being released on bail. He submitted that the issue of Constitutionality should not be decided as an academic exercise.

Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submits that if the petitioner is being released on bail, at least for the present, the petitioner will not press the issue of Constitutionality. However, he submitted that if and when any occasion arises, the petitioner should be reserved the liberty to raise and agitate this issue.

The learned counsel of the parties states that this Court could grant bail to the petitioner by exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. They relied on Arnab Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 2021 SC 1 to submit that it is open to this Court to grant bail to the petitioner by exercising such powers.

Accordingly, given the peculiar circumstances and the fact that the Ld. ASG opened by submitting that the Respondents do not object to the grant of bail; we direct the petitioner’s release on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the Special Judge shall impose when dealing with Special Case No.568 of 2022. Since this bail is to operate during the pendency of Special Case No.568 of 2022, based on this order, the learned Special Judge must impose necessary conditions for the petitioner’s release on bail.

We clarify that this bail is only in the context of Special Case No.568 of 2022 and based on this order, there is no question of the

2 of 3

ppn 901.wp-787.24.docx

petitioner seeking his release in any other case for which he is in custody.

Now that this bail is granted pending Special Case No.568 of 2022. Mr. Ponda, on instructions from the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise and agitate the issue of Constitutionality under Section 306(4)(b) of the Cr. P. C. if and when any occasion for the same arises.

Accordingly, we dispose of this petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

Signed by: Prachi P. Nandiwadekar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/10/2024 20:40:05

3 of 3