Bombay High Court: In the present case, applicant-accused filed an application for bail under Section 4391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) in a crime registered with Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 3022, 3973, and 344 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC); Sections 4 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. A Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., opined that long incarceration exposed under-trial accused to carceral environment which could be inherently damaging to the mental health of the under-trial accused coupled with the appalling conditions in the prisons. The Court, after considering the applicant’s long period of incarceration, that is, 9 years and 25 days, directed that he should be released on bail.
Background
The applicant, at present was 51 years old and he was in custody since 20-01-2016 i.e., for 9 years and 25 days. There were three other accused persons, who had been granted bail. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant should be granted bail on two grounds (a) the applicant’s long incarceration and (b) the applicant was suffering from HIV and was admittedly undergoing treatment from various institutions from the prison.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the only reason it considered the present application was the applicant’s long incarceration in prison since 20-01-2016. The Court noted that the trial commenced from 2018 onwards but till date except the informant and three panch witnesses, witness action had not proceeded further at all. The Court stated that the long incarceration was a situation which impacted the rights of under-trial conferred by Article 21 of Constitution to speedy justice as also personal liberty.
The Court relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Supreme Court considered the prevailing situation of prisons in India, definition of trial and bail, principle of presumption of innocence and reiterated the well recognised principle that bail was the rule and jail was the exception in bail jurisprudence on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616; Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, which discussed the rights conferred by Article 21 qua grant of bail and that such rights could not be taken away unless the procedure was reasonable and fair and in cases where there was unreasonable delay in trial and it would undoubtedly impact the rights of an undertrial.
The Court stated that the applicant in the present case was in custody for 9 years and 25 days and there was no possibility of the trial concluding soon. The Court opined that detaining an under-trial prisoner for such an extended period further violated his fundamental right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court opined that long incarceration could have many negative effects on a person’s mental and physical health as it could lead to post-incarceration syndrome which could include depression, anxiety, and poor self-esteem. It could promote unhealthy behaviours like drug abuse and inmates face social stigma which could disrupt relationships with family and friends. Further, the Court opined that the incarcerated persons often suffered long-term consequences from having been subjected to pain, deprivation, and extremely atypical patterns and norms of living and interacting with others. Thus, long incarceration exposed under-trial accused to carceral environment which could be inherently damaging to the mental health of the under-trial accused coupled with the appalling conditions in the prisons. Researchers had even theorized that incarceration could lead to Post-Incarceration Syndrome, a syndrome similar to PTSD.
The Court held that it considered the period of incarceration as the sole ground for releasing the applicant on bail. Thus, the Court allowed the application and directed that the applicant should be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs 50,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.
[Ganesh Madhukar Mendarkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 309, decided on 14-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: B.L. Jagtap i/by Ashish Jagtap and Anushka Jagtap for Applicant;
For the Respondent: Megha S. Bajoria, APP for State.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Corresponding Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS, 2023’)
If we are incapable of completion the trial in reasonable time we have no right to keep the person in jail. How long he will wait. This is total injustice. Why the condition of Jails is bad ? Why we are not building more Jails? Don’t we have money to build New Jails? We must understand that prisoners are human being. They should not be treated badly.