SLP (Crl.) No. 10841/2023
ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10841/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-06-2023 in CRLBA No. 742/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
ABHIJIT PRADIP KHANDAGALE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RUSHIKESH RAMDAS PATIL & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 136221/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 136223/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 12-01-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR
Ms. Rucha A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. M. Veeraragavan, Adv.
Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. A. Karthik, AOR
Mr. Vinod Kashid, Adv.
Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv.
Ms. Srupriya K., Adv.
Ms. Gunjan Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Ms. Raavi Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The complainant has come before this Court assailing the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent No. 1 on various grounds. We need not go into the grounds raised by the petitioner at this stage.
The High Court granted bail mainly for three considerations:
(i) that respondent No. 2 is aged about 19 years;
(ii) that his role was of instigation and no active role of assault; and
(iii) that he has spent about 6 years in custody.
Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of Maharashtra has submitted that the trial is not proceeding as the nine accused, who are still inside jail, have not engaged counsels in the trial and as such trial cannot proceed further. It is further submitted that taking advantage of the period of incarceration the nine accused inside the jail are now gradually applying for release on bail. The counsels appearing in bail application have confined their engagement only for arguing bail applications and are not appearing in that trial. Couple of order-sheets of the Trial Court have also been read out to us which reflects similar facts as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel.
In the above circumstances we feel that the reasons given by the High Court in granting bail to respondent No. 2 would be confined only for respondent No. 2 alone and the period of incarceration which was a consideration by the High Court in granting bail to respondent No. 2 would not be taken as a ground for the remaining accused who are inside jail.
It would however be open for the remaining accused who are inside jail whether or not to engage counsel and we are not confining their liberty or the rights to apply for bail but the Courts below would consider their cases on their own merits independent of and ignoring their period of incarceration.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of as above without interfering with the impugned order.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NEETA SAPRA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)