Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Former Pune Corporator's Sons Convicted For Murder Citing Long Incarceration Despite Pending Appeals

The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to Tushar and Chetan Nimhan, sons of former NCP corporator Tanaji Nimhan, convicted for the murder of Pratik Nimhan – nephew of another former NCP corporator. The Nimhan brothers had been behind bars since their arrest on April 14, 2023.

The brothers, along with co-accused Munna, are convicted under sections 302 and 452 read with section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam C Chandak emphasized that the applicants had already spent more than 10 years and 10 months in incarceration and concluded that they were entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of their appeals.

The High Court's decision was based on observations of the Supreme Court in recent orders.

“The view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2022 SCC Online SC 697]; (ii) Suleman Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Cri) No.1451 of 2022) dated 25th March, 2022; and (iii) Dinesh @ Paul Daniel Khajekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2987 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P) (Cri.) No. 10320 of 2023) dated 25th September, 2023, the Applicants are entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of their Appeals.”

In Saudan Singh case, the Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to formulate policy facilitating the release of convicts whose appeals are pending despite being under prolonged incarceration. The court directed the Allahabad HC and the State Government to prepare a list of cases where the accused have completed 14 years of sentence and their appeals have not been heard, for examination by the Board for release. In cases where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence, bail can be granted at one go unless there are extenuating circumstances against the accused, the court said.

In Suleman v. State of Uttar Pradesh the Supreme Court on March 25, 2022 disagreed with the denial of bail by the Allahabad HC to the appellant having undergone 12 years of incarceration.

In Dinesh @ Paul Daniel Khajekar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant noting that he had undergone incarceration for more than 11 years. The Court criticized the High Court for not granting relief under Section 389 (release on bail) of the CrPC and emphasized that the high court should have considered the release of the appellant pending the final disposal of the appeal.

The bail was granted on a PR bond of Rs.50,000 each with one or two solvent local sureties of the same amount. Additionally, the court directed the applicants to attend Chaturshringi Police Station, District Pune, every first Monday of the month initially for a year and later every third month. Failure to comply with these conditions for two consecutive instances would empower the prosecution to file an application for bail cancellation.

Background

Pratik Nimhan was murdered on April 12, 2013, in Pashan. He, along with friends, was near a Tennis Court in the vicinity of first informant Kirti Kale's bungalow when they were attacked. The sessions court while convicting the Nimhan brothers held that the prosecution successfully established that due to previous political rivalry, they, along with accomplice Munna, came to the spot armed with deadly weapons, where the Nimhan brothers fired on Pratik, due to which he collapsed in a pool of blood.

Their father and former corporator Tanaji Nimhan was convicted for using forged bail documents to release them from Yerawada central jail in November 2014. The revelation of this fraud resulted in their rearrest.

Tanaji Nimhan was released after serving a two-year term. His challenge to his conviction is pending before the Bombay High Court.

Advocates Abhijeet A Desai, Karan Gajra, Sanchita Sontakke, Digvijay Kachare, Vinay Singh, and Daksha Purghera represented the Applicants.

APP JP Yagnik represented the State.

Case no. – Interim Application No. 1325 of 2022

Case Title – Tushar Tanaji Nimhan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra