State 'Considering' Appeal Against Bail Granted To An Accused Is Not Grounds To Deny Bail To Other Co-Accused: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that a person seeking bail on grounds of parity cannot be denied relief merely because the State is contemplating to challenge the order of bail granted to co-accused and therefore, asked the Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department to ensure that it approves the proposal for filing appeal against an order, within two weeks. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar said the mere intention or contemplation to file an appeal against a bail order does not automatically dilute the legal effect or binding nature of such order unless and until it is stayed, modified, or set aside by a higher forum."Merely stating that a proposal (to file appeal) is 'under consideration' is not sufficient to deprive another similarly situated accused of the benefit of parity. There exists a well-defined procedure to challenge an order passed by this Court. If an officer of the Prosecution Department or Police Department believes that the said order deserves to be challenged, such opinion must be translated into a concrete proposal. This proposal must contain cogent and justifiable reasons, supported by the record, and must be submitted to the Law and Judiciary Department of the Government of Maharashtra within a reasonable time," the judge said in the order passed on June 18. Further, it is expected that the officer or authority who considers such proposal at the government level should pass a reasoned order either granting or refusing permission to file such appeal, the judge said. "A bare, one-line note stating that permission is 'not necessary' cannot be considered sufficient compliance. Judicial accountability and transparency in administrative decision-making demand that the order rejecting such proposal must reflect application of mind and record reasons which indicate consideration of the facts of the case. Such reasoning forms the bedrock of the doctrine of fairness in administrative law," the judge observed. In cases where the liberty of a citizen is at stake, the law requires promptness and responsibility from prosecuting authorities and the executive, Justice Borkar emphasised."Delay in acting on judicial orders cannot become a ground to deny benefit of those very orders. Therefore, in all such matters where the State Government or prosecution intends to challenge a bail order passed by this Court, it is expected that a proper and complete proposal, supported by necessary documents and justification, must be forwarded to the Law and Judiciary Department within two weeks from the date on which the concerned bail order is uploaded on the official website of this Court," the judge said. Thereafter, the concerned officer or authority in the Law and Judiciary Department, the judge pointed out, must ensure that the said proposal is scrutinised and decided within two weeks of its receipt. The reasons for either granting or refusing such permission to file appeal must clearly disclose thoughtful application of mind, showing due regard to the facts of the case and the principles of criminal justice, the court added. "These timelines and obligations are not mere procedural formalities. They are meant to uphold the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to prevent unnecessary pre-trial incarceration. Observance of these procedural safeguards strengthens public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system and promotes responsible governance," Justice Borkar made it clear. The observations were made while granting bail to one Chetan Patil, booked under sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 387 (putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), 427 (mischief causing damage), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code along with the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).While Patil pointed out that on April 4, 2025 a single-judge of the High Court had granted bail to another co-accused in the case pertaining to the suicide of a shopkeeper, who was allegedly harassed by Patil and other co-accused in the case. Patil was not the main accused in the case. Further, it was pointed out that the State government has not yet (till June 18) made any proposal as such to the Law and Judiciary Department to challenge the said April 4 order before the Supreme Court. "...the hearing of such application, which affects liberty of person cannot be adjourned indefinitely as it may affect of liberty of individual person who is entitled to be released on bail based on doctrine of parity. Therefore, in the facts of the case, I find, it is necessary to decide the present bail application," the judge said, adding, "However, it is made clear that in case the order dated 4th April 2025 is set aside in the future time, it shall be open for the prosecution to file an appropriate application. The applicant has therefore made out a case for...

State 'Considering' Appeal Against Bail Granted To An Accused Is Not Grounds To Deny Bail To Other Co-Accused: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

State 'Considering' Appeal Against Bail Granted To An Accused Is Not Grounds To Deny Bail To Other Co-Accused: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers