ABHIMANYU GOVIND MALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by an under-trial accused who has been in custody since the year 1988. The applicant is facing charges under sections 147, 148 and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that the applicant along with his companion accused have committed offences punishable under sections 37 (1), 135 and 142 of the Bombay Police Act. Four of the original accused had applied to this Court for release on bail through Criminal Application No. 2573 of 1988. It appears that prior to the filing of this application, the accused had moved the Sessions Court as also third Court for bail and that the application came to be rejected. My brother Kotwal, J. , by an order dated 28-12-1988, released accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 but rejected the application of the present applicant. There are no reasons indicated in that order as to why this distinction was made but a perusal of the record indicates that this was obviously done, since there are direct involvements as far as the present applicant is concerned that it was for this reason that his application came to be rejected. Thereafter, on 22-3-1990, the present application was filed.

(2.) THE solitary ground canvassed in this application is that the accused has been in custody since the year 1988, that the trial will still take some time and that consequently, the accused be released on bail as the State cannot act in consonance with the accuseds right to a speedy trial. In other words, the question posed is whether, even in the face of rejection of bail by this Court on merits, the accused can renew his application solely on the ground of delay, for which he is not a contributory cause. A corollary to this is the argument that the accused is presumed to be guilty until proved otherwise, and in the event of an acquittal that there are no means of his being compensated for the long, unnecessary detention.

(3.) IN the month of April 1990, my brother K. N. Patil, J. , asked for a report from the Thane Sessions Court with regard to the number of pending cases. According to that report, in the month of June 1990, there were as many as 156 sessions cases pending before that Court. This is a charge-sheet of 1988. As of June 1990, which is 14 months back, there were 33 sessions cases pending out of which, only 7 related to charge sheets filed prior to the year 1988. As of today, therefore, the trial itself is imminent, rendering the challenge almost futile.