1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.300 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.486 OF 2006 Ramratan S. Soni ....Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ------ Mr.S.R. Chitnis, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. Ashish Sawant for Applicant Mr.Pradip D.Ghorat for CBI ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 30TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Shri S.R. Chitnis, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI. 2. This is a third application filed by the Applicant for bail. The Applicant has been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under section 120B r/w. sections 255, 256, 258, 259 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- He was also convicted for the offence punishable under 2 section 256 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine. Both these sentence were directed to run concurrently. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal which has been admitted and pending for the hearing. The Applicant initially had filed an application for bail vide Criminal Application No.46 of 2007. The said application, however, was rejected by Brother J.N.Bhatia J. on 18th April, 2007 on merits and the Learned Single Judge also had directed that the appeal should be listed for final hearing since by that time, the Applicant had already undergone more than 4 years in jail. Thereafter, the Applicant preferred another application in the year 2009. The said application was also rejected by Brother B.R. Gavai J. and the Learned Single Judge observed that since the matter is already on Board, he directed that the appeal should be heard expeditiously. However, in spite of the said directions, which were given, the appeal is still pending. The Applicant, thereafter, filed his third application through jail. It is stated in the application that he is in jail since last about seven years and though directions were given by this Court on two earlier occasions, an appeal could not be finally heard and disposed of. 3 3. Shri Chitnis, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the Applicant had practically undergone the entire sentence. The Applicant was arrested on 15.7.2003. He submitted that, therefore, the Applicant had completed 7 years of actual period and even if the period of remission is taken into consideration, the Applicant would, even otherwise, be released after completing the entire sentence. He submitted that the Apex Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. Wayak reported in 1992 S.C. 1701 in paragraph 54 had clearly observed that "the right of speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all stages, namely the state of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial that is how this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view." He submitted that in another judgment, the Apex Court in the case of Akhtarbi vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 1528 had observed that "appeal being a statutory right the trial courts verdict does not attain finality during pending of the appeal". He then submitted that the Apex Court in several judgments granted bail to the accused after his completion of 50% of sentence. He invited my attention to the case of Akhtarbi vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 1528 and also the judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court 4 Smt. V.K. Tahilramani J. dated 23rd April,2008 in Criminal Application No. 405 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2007. He submitted that, therefore, this is a fit case for releasing the accused on bail. Secondly, the grievance made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant was that though the application was sent by the Applicant through jail and it was received on 23.10.2009, the office had not placed the matter immediately on the Board. He submitted that, thereafter, vakalatnama was filed by the advocate on record and the matter had to be circulated. He submitted that , therefore, suitable directions may be given to the office to immediately place the applications for bail which are filed through jail. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI invited my attention to the earlier two orders passed by this Court. He submitted that the appeal was already on Board and, therefore, it was not necessary to entertain the application for bail. 5. In my view, since the Applicant practically has undergone the entire sentence, he deserves to be released on bail. The Apex Court in several judgments has observed that the right of appeal is a statutory right of the accused and since the appeal is pending, 5 the order passed by the Trial Court does not attain finality till the appeal is heard and disposed of. The Apex Court also has in various judgments held that the accused has a right of speedy trial and has further observed that this right has to be understood not in a restricted sense and this right encompasses even the right of the accused of speedy disposal of appeal which is his statutory right. In both the judgments, on which reliance is placed by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, the Courts have released the Applicant on bail only after taking into consideration the period during which the accused was in jail. The ratio of the judgments is, therefore, squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Applicant is entitled to be released on bail on this ground alone. 6. The Applicant be released on bail in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall, however, report to the CBI, Office at Kitab Mahal, Mumbai once in two months. 7. The office is also directed to place all the applications which are filed through jail for bail promptly on admission board preferably next Monday after the applications are received by the office. The office shall also engage an advocate on behalf of 6 such Applicants through the Panel of Legal Aid which is prepared by the State Legal Authorities. This is necessary since the Applicants who file applications through jail are not in a position to engage an advocate and, therefore, directly file their applications through jail. It is the duty of the State to ensure that they are given free legal assistance and, therefore, it is necessary to appoint the advocate from the Legal Aid Panel. Application, is, accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)