'Law Demands Prompt Action Where Liberty Is at Stake': Bombay HC Grants Bail in Extortion-Suicide Case

Reiterating that when the liberty of a citizen is at stake, the law requires prompt action from prosecuting authorities, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man accused of extortion and abetment to suicide.

“In cases where the liberty of a citizen is at stake, the law demands promptness and responsibility from prosecuting authorities and the executive. Delay in acting on judicial orders cannot become a ground to deny the benefit of those very orders,” the court said.

A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed that merely because the State Government or prosecution intends to challenge a bail granted to a co-accused, it cannot deprive the present applicant of the benefit of parity while seeking bail.

High Court was hearing a bail plea by Chetan Kisan Patil, booked under IPC Sections 306, 387, 506(2), 427, 323, and 34, along with Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), in an FIR registered at Vartak Nagar Police Station.

In the present case, the informant's brother was assaulted by a group of four, including the applicant. He was allegedly extorted using a metal seizer. One of the accused later threatened the victim not to approach the police. On January 31, 2023, the victim died by suicide. Thereafter, a suicide note blamed one Dhiraj for the assault, allegedly committed with his associates, including Rohit and the present applicant.

The counsel for the applicant argued that co-accused Rohit had been granted bail by the court even though the alleged role and antecedents of the applicant and Rohit were similar. Bail was therefore sought on the principle of parity.

Opposing the bail plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Pallavi Dabholkar submitted that Rohit’s bail order was based on an incorrect observation that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) had been conducted, whereas one was indeed held. She told the court that the State is in the process of challenging the bail granted to Rohit.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court observed: “Merely stating that a proposal is ‘under consideration’ is not sufficient to deprive another similarly situated accused of the benefit of parity. There exists a well-defined procedure to challenge an order passed by this Court.”

Further, the high court criticised the delay in forwarding proposals to challenge bail orders and laid down a timeline. It stated that a proposal must be submitted to the Law and Judiciary Department within two weeks of the bail order being uploaded, pursuant to which a decision must be taken within the following two weeks.

It stressed that these timelines are not mere procedural formalities but are intended to uphold the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and prevent unnecessary pre-trial incarceration.

With these directions and observations, the court granted bail to the accused and disposed of the plea.

Case Title: Chetan Kisan Patil Versus State of Maharashtra