Ajit Anand Rane vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

Ajit Anand Rane vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; provisional cash bail of Rs. 50,000/- permitted for immediate release with undertaking to furnish sureties within four weeks. Conditions: report to Investigating Officer as called; attend trial Court on first Tuesday of every month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. (next working day if holiday); cooperate with trial and attend all dates unless exempted, failing which prosecution may seek cancellation; not leave Maharashtra without prior permission of Trial Court; not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence; furnish post-release address to concerned Police Station and trial Court; infraction or two consecutive defaults in marking attendance attracts Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant (Accused No.11) is entitled to regular bail in view of his incarceration of 13 years 8 months and 13 days, a charge-sheeted but stayed trial not likely to be completed in the near foreseeable future, notwithstanding the gravity of the alleged offences and the role attributed to him by prosecution. +1 more

Court's answer

The period of incarceration (13 years 8 months and 13 days) is considered the sole ground for releasing the Applicant on bail, without delineating any opinion on the merits of the case; investigation is complete and charge-sheet filed, and the Covid-19 period is acknowledged in the interregnum for the delay.

Ratio / Principle

Since the trial is stayed (owing to the SC-expedited MCOC Special Case) and will in all likelihood not be completed in the near foreseeable future, the Applicant's right to speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India comes to the fore and impels consideration of the bail application.

Key takeaways

The long period of incarceration pending trial impels the Court to grant bail especially in view of the series of orders passed by this Court granting bail to co-accused on the same grounds.ratio¶29
Gravity of the offence is not an absolute bar: with the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court in numerous cases has enlarged accused indicted under Section 302 IPC considering long incarceration and ground of parity; accordingly bail is granted despite the gravity urged by the State.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Milind N. Jadhav, J.), Criminal Bail Application No.1142 of 2025, decided 17.03.2025 (corrected/modified per speaking to minutes dated 19.03.2025): regular bail allowed to Ajit Anant Rane, Accused No.11, in C.R. No.65 of 2011 (DCB CID, Unit XII) arising out of C.R. No.129 of 2011, Kurar Police Station - offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 342, 364 readwith 511, 395, 143, 147, 148, 149 readwith 120-B IPC - after 13 years 8 months and 13 days of incarceration. Sole ground: prolonged incarceration pending a trial stayed owing to the Supreme-Court-expedited MCOC Special Case No.576 of 2020, so completion is not foreseeable; Article 21 speedy-trial and personal-liberty considerations applied; decision consistent with this Court's prior releases of co-accused (orders dated 28.03.2022, 22.09.2022, 16.12.2024, 07.03.2025 and 12.03.2025). Relied on: In Re: Nagendra Nath Chakravarti (1923 SCC OnLine Cal 318); Satender Kumar Antil ((2022) 10 SCC 51); Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh ((2024) 9 SCC 813) - serious crime is no bar where speedy trial cannot be protected; Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay (SLP (Crl.) No.2543 of 2021); Indrani Pratim Mukerjea (SLP (Crl.) No.1627 of 2022); Ganesh Madhukar Mendarkar (supra) on post-incarceration syndrome and carceral harm; Arthur Road Jail overcrowding (5-6 times sanctioned capacity) noted. Conditions imposed: P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties; provisional cash-bail option; monthly Tuesday attendance before trial Court; no exit from Maharashtra without permission; no witness influence/evidence tampering; address intimation; infractions/default attract Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. cancellation. Earlier dismissal by the Sessions Court (on gravity of incident and prosecution-attributed role) revisited in light of the continuing stay of trial; observations confined to bail, no merits opinion expressed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Learned Sessions Court dismissed the Applicant's earlier Bail Application considering the gravity of the alleged incident and the role attributed to the Applicant by prosecution; hence the present application before this Court.¶28
Sessions Court
Prior proceeding
FIR lodged on 05.06.2011 with Kurar Police Station against 6 to 7 unknown persons for offences punishable under Section 323, 365 readwith 34 of IPC.¶16
Prior proceeding
On 06.06.2011 bodies of four deceased persons were found; investigation transferred to DCB CID.¶16
Prior proceeding
Crime registered as C.R. No.65 of 2011 by DCB CID, Unit XII arising out of C.R. No.129 of 2011 (Kurar Police Station); Applicant arrested on 05.07.2011 and incarcerated since 13 years 8 months and 13 days.¶13
Prior proceeding
Charge-sheet filed and trial commenced in the Sessions Court; prosecution desires to examine a probable 39 witnesses.¶16
Prior proceeding
Co-accused Accused No.4 sought bail in Bail Application No.2008 of 2016; in view of gravity of crime and custody from 08.06.2011 onwards, this Court passed directions for expeditious disposal of trial.¶17
Prior proceeding
Order dated 20.02.2017 (appended at page 761): trial to proceed forthwith, no adjournments to prosecution or defence, accused produced every date; recording of evidence directed to conclude within ten months, which lapsed on 20.12.2017.¶20
Prior proceeding
Series of successive bail applications by various co-accused refused with directions for expeditious disposal of trial.¶21
Prior proceeding
Bail Application No.2139 of 2021: co-accused granted bail by order dated 28.03.2022 after 10 years 9 months custody; trial pending, 24 witnesses examined, 17 to 18 yet to be examined, trial not likely to conclude in another year.¶21
Prior proceeding
Bail Application No.2035 of 2022: another co-accused released by order dated 22.09.2022 after incarceration of 11 years 3 months and 15 days; 6 more witnesses to be examined.¶21
Prior proceeding
Order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.335 of 2024 filed by the State (appended at page No.794 of the Application).¶24
Prior proceeding
Trial in the present case stayed because of pendency of MCOC Special Case No.576 of 2020 expedited by the Supreme Court, prolonging completion of the trial.¶24
Prior proceeding
Three co-accused sought bail in Bail Application No.3989 of 2023, Bail Application No.1644 of 2024 and Bail Application No.3323 of 2023; released by common order dated 16.12.2024 considering merits, long incarceration and trial not likely to be completed within a reasonable period.¶24
Prior proceeding
Co-accused Nos.8 and 12 sought bail in Bail Application No.982 of 2025 and Bail Application No.983 of 2025; enlarged on bail by common order dated 07.03.2025 considering long incarceration.¶25
Prior proceeding
Co-accused No.6 sought bail in Bail Application No.1049 of 2025 on the same ground; granted bail by order dated 12.03.2025.¶25