In a notable decision, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to Dattatraya Maruti Sarak (accused) in a murder case under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused, who has been in custody since August 9, 2022, is one of four individuals and one minor implicated in the murder of Mr. Rahul Mohite.

According to the prosecution, the murder was committed by Dattatraya Maruti Sarak along with other accused in retaliation for the deceased’s alleged harassment of the sister of Accused No. 3. The incident occurred on May 10, 2022, and the First Information Report (FIR) was filed the same day.

Advocate representing Dattatraya Maruti Sarak , argued that her client has been incarcerated for nearly two years with minimal progress in the trial. She noted that the chargesheet was filed on November 3, 2022, but only the charge has been framed, with no substantial advancement in the proceedings.

Conversely, Prosecutor, representing the State, maintained that the murder was premeditated and that the trial had commenced, with two out of 23 witnesses already examined. She emphasized the recovery of a motorcycle linked to Accused No. 1 and a sword linked to Accused No. 2 as critical evidence, asserting that the prosecution plans to present around 23 witnesses in total.

The Court reviewed the case details, noting the significant time since the incident and the filing of the chargesheet. Given the prosecution’s plan to examine 23 witnesses, the Court acknowledged that the trial would be protracted. Importantly, the Court considered that the applicant has no prior criminal record and is not deemed a flight risk.

In light of these considerations, the Court concluded that the applicant could be granted bail under specific conditions. This decision highlights the judicial system’s balancing act between ensuring justice and upholding the rights of the accused, especially in cases where the trial process is expected to be lengthy.

Case Reference: BAIL APPLICATION NO.1869 OF 2023 Dattatraya Maruti Sarak .Applicant Versus
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent