The Bombay High Court has taken a serious view of the pendency of cases before the city civil court and shortage of staff and judges, including those assigned to conduct trial in scheduled offence along with PMLA offence, and asked the registrar general (RG) of the court to take appropriate measures.
Justice SM Modak took note of the issues while granting bail to Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited’s (HDIL) Rakesh Wadhawan and Sarang Wadhawan in the cases registered against them by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai police and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with the Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative (PMC) Bank fraud case.
The court noted that it has to balance the rights of the prosecution and the accused, but at the same time the accused has a right to speedy trial. “This is nothing but an extension of the principle of presumption of innocence till the time, guilt is proved,” the judge underlined.
The court directed their release on furnishing sureties of Rs5 lakh each in both the cases. The father-son duo has sought bail on the grounds of long incarceration and the trial is not likely to commence in the near future. They were arrested on October 17, 2019.
High Court's Call for Administrative Review And Legal Considerations In Pending Cases
The court has asked RG to “take stock of the situation” from the city civil court about total pendency, staff deputed and number of judges. “So if the city civil court administration is facing some difficulties, the learned registrar general with all his experience and responsibility can try to solve the problems and he may also seek necessary directions from the Hon’ble Chief Justice,” Justice Modak observed.
The judge has clarified that the observations are made only for “mitigating problems faced by the prosecuting agency as well as by under trial prisoners”. The judge has expressed hope that due to RG’s intervention, the city civil court administration may be boosted to deal with huge pendency for scheduled and PMLA offences.
Rakesh Wadhawan’s advocates Harshad Nimbalkar and Sagar Shetty, and Sarang’s advocates Aabad Ponda and Subhash Jadhav, submitted that considering the nature of the allegations, seriousness, voluminous documents and number of witnesses to be examined, it is uncertain when the trial will start and will be concluded.
State prosecutors Hiten Venegavkar and SV Gavand opposed the plea contending that seriousness of the allegation and severity of the punishment also needs to be considered.
Court's Deliberations On Detention And Trial
Justice Modak, however, noted that ultimately, the court has “to balance between the rights of both the contesting parties”. The prosecution has to produce evidence to prove the guilt, whereas the accused have corresponding right to expect early disposal of the cases.
The court questioned whether applicants can be detained behind the bars “for a period which no one can definitely predict”. The prosecuting agency and the prosecutors have not given any assurance about the likelihood of completion of the trial in near future and how much time it will take for completion, the court added.
Justice Modak Emphasises Factors Affecting Trial Time And Necessity For Bail
Justice Modak said that the court has to decide after hearing both the sides, and the same is bound to take time. “The availability of Judges is also important. Disposal also depends on co-operation of defence. But paramount consideration is the number of courts dealing with such cases. If it is less, trial is going to take time,” the judge emphasised.
“One cannot deny the fact that considering the statistics received by me, it is uncertain when the trial will start. Hence in such a situation we cannot deprive a person of his personal liberty,” the judge said adding that in the given situation, he has “no alternative (but) to grant bail”.
