Bombay High Court Digest On Bail 2023

Case Title: Naresh s/o Netram Nagpure and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 4

Once the court extends the judicial custody of an accused, the refusal of sanction to prosecute will not invalidate the extension of custody, the Bombay High Court held while refusing to grant default bail in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).

The division bench of Justices Sunil B Shukre and MW Chandwani of the Nagpur bench observed that the power of Special Judge under MCOCA to extend judicial custody by 90 days and power of Additional DGP to give sanction for prosecution under MCOCA have different object.

Though the petitioners applied for bail 30 minutes before the charge sheet was filed, the right to seek default bail would arise only on the next day, the court said adding that for the purpose of ascertaining when the period of authorized custody comes to an end, only the number of completed days is relevant and not the time at which the event having the effect of rendering the custody as unauthorized took place.

2. Non-Confession Of Accused Doesn't Amount To Non-Cooperation, Accused Must Be Released Forthwith If Arrest Doesn't Satisfy Section 41 CrPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Chanda Kochhar v. CBI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 15

Merely saying that the accused has not co-operated and disclosed true and full facts of the case, cannot be the sole reason for arrest, the Bombay High Court said in its detailed order granting interim relief of bail to Ex-ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar in the ICICI Bank-Videocon loan fraud case.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan further sought accountability from judicial officers remanding accused and ordering their detention after arrest.

3. Can't Arrest Accused On Whims And Fancies, CBI's Grounds Of Arrest 'Without Any Substance': Bombay High Court In Venugopal Dhoot's Bail Order

Case Title: Venugopal Nandllal Dhoot v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 39

In its detailed order directing the interim release of former Videocon Group Chairman Venugopal Dhoot, the Bombay High Court stressed on the need to mention concrete reasons for arresting an individual and on the court's duty to record its satisfaction while remanding a person to the police custody.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan cited the non-compliance of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, while granting relief to Dhoot.

The arrest memo is sans particulars of how the statements are inconsistent or how Dhoot failed to cooperate as he had already attended CBI's office but couldn't be confronted due to absence of other accused, it said. Regarding the remand orders dated 26, 28 and 29 December, 2022, the court noted that the presiding officer simply observed that he has perused the case diary and found that the offence is of serious nature. The bench said it is clear that the court hadn't made an effort to scrutinize the remand application or the case diary.

4. Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Former Encounter Specialist Pradeep Sharma; Says He Is Influential, Tampering Cannot Be Ruled Out

Case Title: Pradeep Sharma v. NIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 48

The Bombay High Court denied bail to former “encounter specialist” Pradeep Sharma, an accused in the Antilia Terror Scare and Manshukh Hiran Murder Case citing his clout and prosecution in a past encounter.

The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and R. N. Laddha also questioned Sharma's presence in then Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh's chamber in March 2021. It is the NIA's case that Sharma and dismissed cop Sachin Waze planned Hiran's murder within the Mumbai Police Commissionerate.

The HC criticized NIA's investigation into the terror threat near the Ambani residence. The court said that NIA has not done in-depth investigation. Sharma's name came up for the first time as a co-conspirator during a hearing and that too after being asked by the court, the bench noted. It added that the NIA has not mentioned this anywhere in the charge sheet.

5. Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Neighbour Booked Under SC/ST Act For Whistling, Says Making Sounds In His Own House Does Not Show Sexual Intent

Case Title: Yogesh Laxman Pandav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 49

The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to three persons accused of committing atrocities against a member of a Scheduled Caste observing that mere creation of sound by accused in his own house cannot mean that it was with sexual intent.

The court also noted that in the first alleged incident of caste abuse, the complainant has alleged that accused persons had abused her in chorus. The name of the caste did not form part of the abuse. “Still if we consider that, that abuse was with an intention to insult the informant; yet, it is to be noted that it is alleged to have been uttered in chorus, which is an unbelievable act. Abuses cannot be given in chorus”, the court added.

6. 'Judge Expected To Apply Mind, Pass Speaking Order': Bombay HC Directs Subordinate Courts To Desist From Using Rubber Stamps For Deciding Bail Pleas

Case Title: Ashokrao s/o Uttamrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 86

Observing bail has to be granted or rejected by a speaking order, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court directed the subordinate Courts to desist from using rubber stamps to decide bail applications.

A bail order produced before a bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki Menezes reflected it had been "rendered on a rubber stamp with blank spaces" in which the Magistrate had filled in the bond amount without mentioning any other details.The court said that there is no apparent authorization for the use of such rubber stamps to enable a Magistrate to grant bail. Grant of bail is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate, who is expected to apply his mind after considering the material on record and is required to be granted or rejected by a speaking order.

The court directed the Registrar to circulate its judgement to all District and Sessions courts.

7. Objectionable To Morality And Human Rights That A Mother Sold Her Daughter: Bombay HC While Granting Bail To Woman Who “Purchased” The Child

Case Title: Ashwini Sanjay Babar v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 101

Objectionable to morality and human rights that a one-year-old girl has been sold by her mother, the Bombay High Court observed while granting bail to a woman accused of buying another woman's daughter.

Justice S. M. Modak observed said that the mother sold the child as she was in need of money. “I am at great pains when the word 'sale' is used. But the other side of the coin is that her own mother has done this act and the hard reality of the life is that she is in need of money as her husband is behind bar.”

The court noted that now the complainant's daughter is with her parents. Further, applicant/accused also has two minor children whose welfare has to be considered.

The court said that it is not known when the trial will start and finish and hence there is no need to detain the applicant till the conclusion of the trial.

8. NALSA's Scheme For Undertrial Prisoners Cannot Take Away Court's Discretion To Grant Or Refuse Bail: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mahipati Antu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 110

The Bombay High Court held that the NALSA's scheme for release of undertrial prisoners is meant to bring the attention of the stakeholders i.e., courts, to the undertrial persons languishing in jail, but it cannot override the court's discretion to grant or refuse bail to such prisoners on merits.

Justice S. M. Modak, while denying bail to a murder accused, observed that nothing can take away the discretion of the court in grant of bail.

9. Relationship Cannot Be Said To Have "Religious Angle" Merely Because Boy And Girl Are From Different Religions: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Shaikh Sana Farheen Shahmir and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation – 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 130

A case will not have religious angle merely because the boy and girl in a relationship are from different religions, the Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court held.

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghwase granted anticipatory bail to a Muslim woman and her family accused of forcing a Hindu man to convert to Islam.

10. Sanatan Sanstha Not Declared Banned Or Terrorist Organization Under UAPA: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Liladhar @ Vijay Lodhi v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 157

Sanatan Sanstha has not been declared a banned or terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004, the Bombay High Court observed.

A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Kamal Khata granted bail to two members of the Sanstha in the Sunburn Terror Attack Conspiracy 2017 and Nallasopara Arms Haul Case 2018.

“The most intriguing part of this case is that 'Sanatan Sanstha' is an organization which has not been declared to be a banned or terrorist organization or a frontal organization of any banned terrorist group within the meaning and contemplation of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004”, the court said.

The court said that the prosecution's evidence was “disappointing” and there was no prima facie evidence against the accused.

11. Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Hospital Owners, Doctor In Fake COVID Vaccination Camp Case

Case Title: Dr. Shivaraj Pataria v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 185

The Bombay Court granted bail to hospital owners and a doctor accused of giving fake COVID vaccines in various vaccination camps across Mumbai observing that the alleged fake vaccines did not cause death or any adverse effect to any patient. Justice Bharati Dangre opined that the material shows Mahendra Singh of the Malad Medical Assocation as kingpin of the entire scam.

12. POCSO Act Not Meant To Punish Minors In Romantic Relationships: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Imran Iqbal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 231

The Protection of Children of From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) was enacted to protect minors from sexual assault, not to punish minors in romantic or consensual relationship and brand them as criminals, the Bombay High Court said.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai observed thus and granted bail to a 22-year-old accused of kidnapping and rape of a minor under sections 363, 376 of the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act.

13. Yes Bank-DHFL Loan Fraud Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea By Rana Kapoor

Case Title: Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 234

The Bombay High Court denied bail to Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor in the Yes Bank-DHFL loan fraud case.

Justice PD Naik reasoned that Kapoor is facing serious allegation of laundering public money, and refused bail on ground of long incarceration.

Though the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court have granted bail on the ground of long incarceration, gravity of accusations cannot be brushed aside, the court said.

The court further noted that Kapoor is involved in seven other similar cases. Allegedly, Rs. 378 Crores out of proceeds of crime of Rs. 600 Crores have been invested overseas. Thus, the court held that Kapoor is not entitled to bail considering his alleged role and magnitude of the crime.

14. Police Can't Add More Sections Against Accused And Seek Extension Of Custody By Mere Letter To Court Without Fresh Remand Papers: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Irfan Moiuddeen Saiyyed and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 264

The Bombay High Court held that police cannot seek to add additional sections and extension of judicial custody by a mere letter to the judge without submitting remand papers and bringing the new sections to the notice of the accused.

Justice SG Mehare of the Aurangabad bench observed that the accused has to be given an opportunity to contest the additional charges brought against him. It granted default bail to four persons accused of cryptocurrency fraud.

“…in the absence of submitting the remand papers without knowledge of the accused, the prosecution cannot by a bare letter addressed to the Court, seek the extension of remand more than the period prescribed under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C…the extension of remand, particularly after adding new sections constituting the serious offence, is not a bare formality. The Court extending the detention of the accused for a period more than prescribed under the law has to pass a speaking order after hearing both sides,” the court held.

15. Bombay High Court Grants Bail To MCOCA Accused; Says No Independent Reasons By Prosecutor To Extend Custody, 'Word By Word' Copied From IO

Case Title: Darshan Subhash Nandagawali v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 286

The Bombay High Court pulled up a prosecutor attached to a Special MCOCA Court for copying the investigating officer's (IO) request for extension of time to file charge sheet in a case word-for-word in his own application for extension filed before the court.

A division bench of Justice Bharat Deshpande and Justice Vinay Joshi sitting at Nagpur while granting bail to a twenty-year-old organised crime accused held that the public prosecutor completely failed in his duty as he did not record independent reasons for supporting the IO's request for extension.

16. Bombay HC Grants Bail To Convict In Aurangabad Arms Hauls Case, Says Prima Facie No Evidence He Visited Bangladesh Or Got Funds

Case Title: Afroz Khan Shahid Khan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 297

The Bombay High Court suspended the sentence and granted bail to Afroz Khan, a convict in the 2006 Aurangabad arms haul case who allegedly visited Bangladesh and brought back funds for terrorist activity.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse observed that confessions by two co-accused, which were the basis of his conviction, did not prima facie show that he actually visited Bangladesh.

While allowing his bail application, the court also took into consideration that Khan has been in prison for 17 years during which he completed his BA and is conducting de-radicalization sessions in the prison with the help of jail authorities.

17. Sandeep Gadholi Alleged Fake Encounter: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Ex-Model Divya Pahuja After Almost 7 Years

Case Title: Divya Ashok Pahuja v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 305

The Bombay High Court granted bail to ex-model Divya Pahuja, a prime accused in the alleged fake encounter of gangster Sandeep Gadholi in 2016.

Pahuja, who is booked for conspiracy along with policemen from Haryana is alleged to have provided Gadholi's whereabouts that led to his death. She was with him at the time of the incident.

Justice PD Naik considered Pahuja's prolonged incarceration of seven years and the fact that she was only 18 when arrested, to grant bail.

18. Man Lured By Job Offer During Covid Robbed And Killed: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused After Police Fails To Prove Recovery

Case Title: Sagar Chandramauli Ponnala v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 325

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man co-accused of luring an unassuming job seeker to his ultimate death during the Covid-19 pandemic on the ground that the prosecution prima facie failed to substantiate the circumstantial evidence against him.

Justice SM Modak granted bail to Sagar Ponnala booked under Sections 326 (grievous hurt), 302 (murder) and 34 of IPC. The judge noted that apart from call records there was nothing more to connect Ponnala to the crime.

It further rejected the prosecution's argument that the bounty-bag collected by a watchman near the crime scene and handed over to the police days later could be termed as a recovery at Ponnala's behest merely because he allegedly pointed out the place where the bag was left.

19. Bombay High Court Refuses Temporary Bail To Nawab Malik On Medical Grounds In Money Laundering Case

Case Title: Nawab Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 334

The Bombay High Court refused temporary bail to former Maharashtra Cabinet Minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik in ED's money laundering case.

The order was passed by Justice Anuja Prabhudessai. Malik sought bail on the ground that one of his kidneys has failed and the other is functioning only at 60 percent capacity and is deteriorating further.

20. [S.52A NDPS Act] Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused As Samples Collected In Front Of Magistrate Not Sent For Chemical Analysis

Case Title: Santosh Pandurang Parte v. Amar Bahadur Maurya and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 348

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a 35-year-old man arrested after commercial quantity of Ganja was allegedly seized from his farmhouse, on the ground that the authorities did not send samples collected in front of the Magistrate to the Chemical Analyzer.

Justice SM Modak observed –

“learned Magistrate has taken the inventory and drawn few of the samples as mentioned in the para no. 14 of certificate on page no. 128 but fact remains that these samples were not sent to the Chemical Analyzer. So it is true that the directions in para no. 31(1) of the observations in case of Union of Indian Vs. Mohanlal were not followed. Ultimately when the evidence will be adduced during the trial, there will not be Chemical Analyzer report available on the basis of the analysis done about samples taken before learned Magistrate what will be available is Chemical Analyzer report about samples taken at the spot/office.”

21. SC/ST Atrocities Act | Case Not Made Out For Releasing Accused No Ground To Not Notify Victim Regarding Bail Proceedings: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kishor Shivdas Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 349

The Bombay High Court deprecated the practice of some Special Judges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act not properly reflecting the submissions of victims as per Section 15A of the Act in their orders.

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase, while granting bail to a man accused in a murder case, observed that bail application should be decided only after informing and hearing the informant or the victim.

22. 'Insubordination': Bombay High Court Criticises Additional Sessions Judge For Violating HC Order While Granting Bail To Murder Accused

Case Title: Ramchandra Maruti Yedage v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 350

The Bombay High Court criticized an Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad citing insubordination and judicial impropriety while dealing with a bail application of a murder accused.

Justice RM Joshi of the Aurangabad Bench observed that the Judge entertained and allowed the bail application of the accused despite being aware of previous High Court order granting the accused liberty to approach the High Court, and not the trial court, for bail.

“The trial Courts are expected to maintain judicial propriety and ensure that there is no insubordination of Higher Court in any manner. The Lawyers and Public Prosecutors being officers of the Court also share equal responsibility to be honest and fair to the Courts and in no case involve themselves in suppression of facts before any Court of law”, the court observed.

23. Heirs' DNA Not Collected For Identification Of Remains, Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Chopping Girlfriend's Body

Case Title: Hanumant Ashok Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 357

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of murdering his girlfriend and chopping her body, after noting that the police didn't collect DNA samples of the woman's heirs to identify the recovered body parts.

Justice Amit Borkar observed that the identity of the recovered body parts, which were completely decomposed, needs to be determined during the trial and prima facie, there isn't sufficient material to warrant further detention of the accused.

24. Relationship Prima Facie Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Married Lawyer Accused Of Rape By Client

Case Title: Bablu Jumman Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 361

The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused of raping his client, observing that the relationship appeared consensual despite the accused being a married man.

While the victim claimed she had no idea the lawyer she was consulting and was in love with was married, the court noted that the woman was in contact with the man despite knowledge of his marriage.

Accordingly, Justice Anuja Prabhudessai granted him anticipatory bail on an application under section 438 of the CrPC.

25. GMAT Exam Scam: Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused

Case Title: Kumar Kunal v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 396

The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail to one Kumar Kunal, accused of remotely accessing the laptop of GMAT exam candidates through Any Desk app, solving the papers, and manipulating results.

Justice Amit Borkar observed that the custodial interrogation of Kunal is necessary in light of WhatsApp chats between him and one Shantanu, a victim of the scam.

“prima facie, it appears that the relevant extract of diary maintained by the principal accused indicate payment of Rs.1,47,000/- and Rs.2,56,000/- to the applicant by cash. The prosecution case gets strength from the WhatsApp conversion between the applicant and witness Shantanu who is one of the victim…In the context of observations made in the said order the WhatsApp chat between witness Shantanu and the applicant does have material bearing on the investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary”, the court held.

26. S.42 NDPS Act | No Reason For Search After Sunset Without Warrant: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Man Booked For Alleged Possession Of 50 Kgs Ganja

Case Title: Shivraj Gorakh Satpute v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 445

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a 22-year-old man booked for possession of commercial quantity of Ganja after 50 Kgs Ganja was allegedly seized from his home between sunset and sunrise based on information given by another accused.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai observed that the seizure was not a chance recovery, and there was nothing to show the officer's reasonable belief that obtaining a warrant for search between sunset and sunrise would allow the offender to escape.

27. No Materials To Prima Facie Indicate UAPA Offences Against Mahesh Raut: Bombay High Court In Bhima Koregaon Case

Case Title: Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. National Investigation Agency

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 451

Observing that the material against forest rights activist Mahesh Raut couldn't lead to a prima-facie inference that he had indulged in a 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the Bombay High Court granted him bail in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad larger conspiracy case.

“We are of the prima-facie opinion that on the basis of the material placed before us by the NIA, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Appellant is prima-facie true to attract Sections 16, 17, 18, 20 and 39 of UAP Act,” the court of Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh observed.

The court further noted the 5 years and three months Raut has already spent inside prison without trial.

28. Some Accountability Should Be Fixed On Courts To Complete Trial In Cases Of Prolonged Incarceration: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shishirkumar Gopalchandra Padhy v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 460

The Bombay High Court has expressed strong displeasure at the lack of effort by prosecuting agencies and trial judges to ensure timely completion of criminal trials resulting in prolonged incarceration of the accused.

Justice Bharati Dangare granted bail to a murder accused incarcerated for over seven years in a case requiring examination of just 10 witnesses. Despite expediting the trial, a year ago, there was no progress, the court noted.

“Time and again, I have expressed that some accountability deserves to be fixed and when I say accountability it is not only procedural one but possibly on the courts, who are in seized of such trials and particularly when the accused are incarcerated for such a long time.”

29. Bombay High Court On Anticipatory Bail | POCSO Act Prevails Over Atrocities Act Only If Allegations Under POCSO Are Readily Apparent And Court Proven

Case Title: Dinanath Manik Katkar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 470

The Bombay High Court held that provisions regarding anticipatory bail in the POCSO Act would not prevail over provisions of appeal in the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act if the allegations under POCSO Act are not prima facie made out against the accused.

Justice NJ Jamadar, while dealing with an anticipatory bail application of a person accused under both POCSO Act and Atrocities Act, observed –

“Apart from a passing reference that there were girls in the procession and they were also video-graphed, there is no other allegation which would prima facie fall within the dragnet of section 12 of the Act, 2012. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the applicant prefers an appeal as envisaged by section 14A(4) of the SC and ST Act, 1989.”

30. Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Sanatan Sanstha Member Vaibhav Raut Accused Of Making Bombs To Attack 2018 Sunburn Festival At Pune

Case Title: Vaibhav Subhash Raut v. State of Maharashtra (ATS)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 471

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Vaibhav Raut, prime accused in Nalasopara Arms Hauls case who was arrested in 2018 on charges of being a member of right wing group Sanatan Sanstha and plotting an attack on the Sunburn Festival with crude bombs.

The Maharashtra's Anti-Terrorism Squad found eight crude bombs in Raut's house while 12 crude bombs were recovered from a godown along with a diary which detailed his planning and preparation for crude bombs.

However, a division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse granted bail to Raut mainly on grounds of parity with other co-accused and prolonged incarceration of five years since the trial against him wouldn't conclude anytime soon.

31. Bombay High Court Denies Medical Bail To HDIL Promoter Rakesh Wadhawan, Directs JJ Hospital To Send Physiotherapist And Nurse To Prison Hospital

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 501

The Bombay High Court refused to grant bail on medical grounds to Housing Development Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL) promoter Rakesh Wadhawan who is booked in the multi crore Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative (PMC) Bank loan fraud case and lodged in Arthur Road Central Prison, Mumbai.

Rakesh Wadhawan and his son Sarang face allegations of fraudulently obtaining loans of Rs 2,558 crore from PMC Bank and failing to repay the due amount of Rs. 4,435 crores including interest.

Justice Bharati Dangre observed that the recommendations from doctors did not indicate an urgent need for any specific medical procedure or surgery and that the prescribed course of treatment was primarily medication and management.

32. Bombay High Court Grants Bail In NDPS Case After Seized Charas Found 10 Grams Lighter At The Time Of Inventory

Case Title: Sunil Shishupal Nayak v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 505

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of possession of commercial quantity of 'Charas' under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) after the weight of Charas seized from him supposedly reduced in police custody.

The prosecution claimed that the weight of Charas at the time of seizure was 1 kg and 10 grams. However, when presented before the magistrate for inventory, it weighed 1 kg only.

The court held that since the contraband seized from Nayak weighed 1 kg at the time of inventory before the Magistrate, qualifying as an intermediate quantity, the strict conditions for bail under section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.

The court clarified that whether the weight at the time of seizure or the weight before the Magistrate during inventory has to be considered for determining guilt of the accused will be decided at the time of trial.

33. S.438 CrPC | Accused In Custody Not Precluded From Seeking Anticipatory Bail In Another Case: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Amar S. Mulchandani vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 515

An accused in custody in one case can seek anticipatory bail in another case under Section 438 of the CrPC, the Bombay High Court held and granted pre-arrest bail to an accused in a forgery case.

“I am impelled to hold that the fact that the applicant is already in custody in one case does not preclude him from seeking prearrest bail in connection with another case in which he apprehends arrest,” Justice NJ Jamadar held.

The judge relied on the High Court's views in Alnesh Akil Somji V/s. State of Maharashtra which held that an earlier judgement of the SC in Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Anr. V/s. Union of India and Ors. does not hold in very clear terms that a person arrested in one offence was barred from seeking anticipatory bail in another offence.

34. S.306(4) CrPC | Bail Conditions Open For Approver Who Has Abided By All Conditions Of Pardon

Case Title: Danish Ali Jamaluddin Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 533

An approver who has complied with all conditions of pardon and deposed as a witness in the prosecution's favor need not remain incarcerated till the end of the trial and would be entitled to bail, especially in case of a protracted trial, the Bombay High Court held.

Justice MS Karnik observed that the bar under Section 306(4) of the CrPC against releasing an approver before conclusion of trial needs to be harmoniously construed with personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution.

“In my opinion, now that the applicant has complied with the conditions and has been examined as a prosecution witness before the Special Court, the fetters of the applicant's continuing in detention until the termination of the trial needs to be watered down.”

The court noted an approver is kept in custody during the trial to protect him from other accused in the case. This could now be achieved under the Witness Protection Act enacted in 2017 wherein it is State's responsibility to provide protection to a witness.

35. Bombay High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Non-Production Of Undertrials, Directs State To Utilize Budget For VC Facilities Before March 31

Case Title: Tribhuvansingh Raghunath Yadav v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 588

The Bombay High Court took suo moto cognizance of the issue of non-production of the undertrial prisoners before the appropriate courts at various stages.

Justice Bharati Dangre was dealing with a bail application by one Tribhuvansingh Raghunath Yadav, an accused in a forgery case who wasn't produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Andheri on 23 dates either physically or through VC.

“Bail Application No.1836 of 2023 is disposed off, as far as applicant is concerned. However, since the orders which are passed by me appointing the Amicus pertain to the larger issue of production of the under-trial prisoners before the appropriate courts at various stages, the Application is now titled as 'suo motu application' and the registry shall allot a new number to the same”, the court observed.

36. "No Material To Infer Gautam Navlakha Committed Terrorist Act": Bombay High Court In Bail Order In Bhima Koregaon- Elgar Parishad Case

Case Title: Gautam P Navlakha v. National Investigating Agency

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 597

There is no material to infer senior journalist and accused Gautam Navlakha had committed a terrorist Act as contemplated under Section 15 of UAPA, the Bombay High Court observed in its detailed order granting him bail in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad riots case.

“The actual involvement of the appellant in any terrorist act cannot be even inferred from any of the communications and/ or statements of the witnesses,” the court observed.

The bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Shivkumar Dige granted bail to Navlakha an, accused in the Bhima Koregaon- Elgar Parishad case over alleged Maoist links.

Navlakha, a journalist and activist was arrested on April 14, 2020 for his alleged involvement in the violence that erupted at Bhima Koregaon village in Pune district on January 1, 2018. He has been in jail for over 3 years and 8 months.

37. Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused Held For 5 Years Without Framing Of Charges

Case Title: Jahid alias Javed Liyakat Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 600

The Bombay High Court granted bail to an accused in a murder case citing his prolonged incarceration without the framing of charges for the past five years.

Justice Bharati Dangre while granting bail to one Javed Ansari, stated

“Though the material in the charge-sheet indicate the Applicant's active participation in the subject C.R., if the concerned Court on account of the reason that it was embroiled in several time-bound matters, was not able to take the trial of the Applicant any further, I am left with no other option than to secure his release on bail, as he cannot be incarcerated indefnitely as an under-trial prisoner and it is more than fve years, he remained incarcerated without the trial.”