Murder Accused in Custody For 8 Years Freed

Murder Accused in Custody For 8 Years Freed

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has observed that the discretion of the court to grant or deny bail cannot be taken away by any Act. The observation came on its dismissal of a plea of a murder accused, aged 71 and in custody for eight years, who had cited a scheme framed by the National Legal Services Authority (NLSA) for the release of undertrials to commemorate the 75th Independence Day.

The NLSA scheme, called 'Release Under Trial Review Committee (UTRC)@75', had carved out a category based on the age of undertrials.

NLSA had said, "Prisons in India are overcrowd ed."

Justice S Modak said the scheme has two aspects, one is to approach the district court for bail, and the other is the actual passing of an order. "It is true that it is the discretion of the court concerned, whether to grant bail or not. Such discretion cannot be taken away by any act," he stressed in his February 8 order.

The HC said the scheme has been framed also to bring the spotlight on the number of undertrials languishing in jail for years. It said the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MSLSA) was successful in bringing attention to the applicant's case. The HC noted the trial court had last July considered merits to deny bail, observing that the man, MA Jadhav, had also allegedly attempted to kill four witnesses.

The HC said considering the merits of the case the accused cannot secure bail.Advocate Hrishikesh Chavan, appointed for the undertrial by the High Court Legal Service Committee, said if merits were considered, the purpose of the scheme would be defeated. He said it called for the release of "Those undertrials who are above 65 years of age." Additional public prosecutor NB Patil opposed the bail plea, saying. "Merits of the matter need to be considered and if they are not considered, then many undertrial prisoners will be released on bail irrespective of merits."

The scheme, in continuation of earlier measures taken by NALSA, launched last July, envisaged recommending cases fit for bail and check unnecessary pretrial detention. Broadly, the scheme covers convicts and those awaiting their turn for trial, said the HC.

Amongst undertrials, there are various categories depending upon the nature of offence, type of punishment, health condition, gender, and age group, observed the HC, noting that "certain categories don't mention nature of offence or period of detention as an undertrial prisoner". Category 16 (the one under consideration) is one such that only mentions the age of undertrial, said the HC, which sought clarification from the member secretary, MSLSA, about the scheme. The HC said, "He could not place on record any clarification except giving the statistics of how many ap plications have been received and the steps taken."