1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5065 OF 2009 Baba @ Gabrial Hans Moben ....Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Mr. Abhaykumar Apte for Applicant Mr.S.A. Shaikh - APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 4TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The present Applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under section 302, 307, 330, 333, 341, 353, 120-B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Applicant was arrested on 23.11.1994 and he is languishing as an undertrial prisoner since last more than 14 years. I am informed that the trial has begun but only 15 witnesses are examined. However, the prosecution has given the list of 130 witnesses. It 1 is submitted that the prosecution is likely to examine the said witnesses within a short period. However, the learned APP submitted that number of witnesses would not be less than 60. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that initially the provisions of TADA were applied in the present case. However, by order dated 27th July, 1999, the Applicant was discharged from the provisions of TADA Act and, as such, the Applicant was to be tried under the provisions of sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After the Applicant was discharged from the provisions of TADA Act, the matter was transferred from Pune Court to Kalyan District Court. The Applicant had applied for bail, however, bail was rejected. Though on several occasions this Court had directed the Sessions Court to expeditiously dispose of the trial. The trial is not yet over, in spite of the specific direction given by this Court. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the Applicant, therefore, is entitled to be released on bail only on the ground that he is languishing in jail as an undertrial prisoner for more than 14 years. 1 6. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the application for bail. He submitted that the Applicant is charged for an offence of committing murder of one of the police constable and attempting to commit murder of another co-accused. He submitted that direction may be given to the Sessions Court to decide the case expeditiously and that within a period of two months the trial could be over. 7. It is most unfortunate that in spite of several directions given by this Court to expedite the trial to the Session case, the trial is not yet over, as a result of which the Applicant has to be kept as an undertrial prisoner for more than 14 years. In my view, on that ground alone, the Applicant would be entitled to be released on bail. The Apex Court in several cases have held that the accused has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial. It is further held that the accused should not be kept as an undertrial prisoner for an indefinite period. 8. In view of the various judgments of this Court and the Apex Court, in my view, this is a fit case where the Applicant deserves to be released on bail 1 only on the ground that he has remained in custody as an undertrial prisoner for more than 14 years. The Applicant is a permanent resident of Mumbai and he is not likely to abscond. Stringent conditions can be imposed on the Applicant. 9. In the result, the Applicant be released on bail in C.R.No. I-290/1990 registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicant shall report to the concerned police station every day during the pendency of the trial. The Sessions Court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and if possible, on day today basis. 10. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)