Already Suffered Incarceration For Almost 7 Years: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Killing Her 14-Month-Old Child
Justice Manish Pitale, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court granted the relief of bail to a woman accused of killing her 14-month-old baby in the backdrop of an extramarital affair with the co-accused person after noting the 7-year-long period of incarceration suffered by her.
The High Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v/s. The State of Maharashtra (2024), Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v/s. State of Bihar (1981) and Satender Kumar Antil v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2022) whereby it has been reaffirmed that Constitutional Courts must exercise their power to enlarge the accused under-trials on bail, while imposing appropriate conditions.
The applicant approached the High Court seeking bail as she was arrested in the year 2019 in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Manish Pitale said, “There is hardly any material to indicate that the trial would commence forthwith and there is remote possibility of the trial being completed within a reasonable period of time.”
Advocate Amit Icham represented the Applicant while APP Mayur S. Sonavane represented the Respondent-State.
There were 3 accused persons. One of the accused persons was a juvenile, who was released and another co-accused person was released by an order on the grounds of the period of incarceration suffered by the said co-accused person and in the face of the fact that there was no progress in the trial.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that the case at hand was one of circumstantial evidence and the applicant is a woman, who has suffered incarceration for almost 7 years (more than 6 years and 10 months). It was submitted that the coaccused person having been granted bail on the ground of long incarceration, this applicant also deserved to be granted relief, for the reason that even after the said order was passed by this Court in favour of the co-accused.
The APP submitted that witness summons had already been issued and the trial can be completed. It was submitted that the applicant in the present case was alleged to have caused the murder of her own 14-month-old child in the backdrop of an extramarital affair with the co-accused person. It was also contended that the husband of the applicant is the informant in the present case and there is enough material on record to indicate that the applicant not only caused the death of the minor child by strangulation but effort was also made to destroy the evidence by attempting to bury the body of the minor.
The Bench opined that the Supreme Court in various judgments has highlighted the aspect of the right to speedy trial of accused under trial being a facet of the right to life under Section 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also been emphasized that the seriousness of the offences registered against the accused under trial, cannot be a ground to deny bail, even though such an accused under trial has suffered a long period of incarceration and there is a remote possibility of the trial being completed within a reasonable period of time.
“It is also indicated in the aforesaid judgment and earlier judgments that even in cases, involving offences under special Statutes, where the accused under-trials are required to satisfy a higher threshold for being enlarged on bail, the Constitutional Courts ought to exercise the aforesaid power to grant relief to such accused under-trials”, it said.
In light of such legal aspects, the Bench showed its inclination towards allowing the Appeal. The Bench also noted that in the order passed by this Court granting relief to co-accused, the High Court had taken note of the fact that there was no progress in the trial.
“More than 2 years have gone by and yet, the stage of the trial is the same and not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. In the meanwhile, the applicant, who is a woman, has already suffered incarceration for a period of 6 years and 10 months i.e. almost 7 years. The list of witnesses shows that the prosecution intends to examine 36 witnesses”, the Bench noted.
Thus, allowing the application, the Bench ordered the Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a Bond of Rs 25,000 and one or two sureties in the like amount.
Cause Title: Mamta Birendra Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:49149)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Amit Icham, Chaitanya Purankar
Respondent-State: APP Mayur S. Sonavane