The Bombay High Court (Bombay Bench) allowed the appeal, set aside the earlier order denying bail, and allowed the appellant to be released on bail pending trial.
The case stems from multiple low-intensity blasts in Pune on 1 August 2012, with 9 accused charged under Indian Penal Act (IPC), Explosives Act, Arms Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The prosecution alleges the blasts were staged to avenge the death of an Indian Mujahideen operative. The appellant was arrested in December 2012, with the charge of preparing forged documents for SIM cards and providing his shop premises for conspiracy. He has remained in pre-trial custody since December 2012. A co-accused (Munib Iqbal Memon) with a comparable role was granted bail by a co-ordinate High Court Bench in September 2024. Only 27 of 170 cited witnesses had been examined by August 2025, and the prosecution anticipated a lengthy trial.
The appellant challenged the Special Judge’s order dated 1 September 2021 that rejected his bail application in the case arising from the 2012 Pune serial bomb blasts. He sought bail under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The appellant argued that:
(i) the appellant is similarly placed as a recently bailed co-accused
(ii) he has already undergone 12.5 years of pre-trial custody
(iii) there is no likelihood the trial will conclude soon
The prosecution opposed bail, citing the confessions and alleged involvement.
The Bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Rajesh S. Patil noted the lack of antecedents, similarity of role with the bailed co-accused, absence of a murder charge, moderate sentence range for relevant charges, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb[1] that prolonged undertrial custody can override stringent statutory restrictions on bail, as continued incarceration would defeat the right to a speedy trial.
The Court observed that while bail cannot be mechanically denied under stringent terrorism-related statutes merely if the accused has suffered prolonged pre-trial detention and trial is unlikely to conclude, the principle of parity mandated bail, since a similarly charged co-accused had obtained bail. The accused’s lack of previous criminal history and minimal role in the conspiracy (relative to others) were considered.
In result, the Court set aside the rejection of bail and directed that the appellant be released on a PR Bond of Rs. 1 lakh with local sureties, subject to stiff conditions: monthly reporting, non-tampering with evidence or witnesses, no travel outside Mumbai or Pune without court permission, passport surrender, notification of address changes, and trial attendance. Violation of these would allow prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. The observations in the judgment are prima facie and will not affect merits at trial. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Case relied on:
1. Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
Appearances:
Mr. Mubin Solkar a/w Mr. Tahir Hussain, Mr. Anas Shaikh, Mr. Hemal Shah and Ms. Tahera Qureshi for Appellant.
Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
[1] (2021) 3 SCC 713
