The Bombay High Court has taken the step of granting bail to Dipak Patil, an individual accused of murder and facing charges related to leading a criminal gang, all under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). This decision to grant bail was influenced by significant delays in the trial proceedings, which spanned a period of nine years and had only resulted in the framing of charges thus far.
The prosecution's case revolved around the assertion that Dipak Patil, identified as the principal perpetrator, was part of a group of six individuals responsible for a murder that occurred in 2014. According to reports, Patil was allegedly hired to carry out this killing as an act of vengeance because the victim's wife had a previous relationship before her marriage. The Karad police in Satara district recorded statements from two eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen Patil firing at the victim.
The prosecution raised objections to granting bail, citing the gravity of the crime and Patil's extensive criminal record, which encompassed nine distinct cases. In response, Patil's defence attorney, Aniket Nikam, emphasized the extensive period of his client's imprisonment—Patil had been in custody since August 19, 2014, which amounted to over nine years.
Nikam advanced the argument that, as of now, only charges had been framed in the case, and the prosecution intended to call upon approximately 90 witnesses, with the possibility of more to follow. This, he contended, warranted his client's release on bail.
In contrast, the prosecution referred to Section 21(4) of MCOCA, which necessitates that, for bail to be granted, the court must hold reasonable beliefs in the accused's innocence and their unlikelihood to engage in further criminal activities. The prosecution also presented evidence of Patil's previous violent acts, particularly citing a prison altercation four years ago in which Patil and five other inmates were involved in an assault.
Justice MS Karnik, in his response to this argument, conveyed that the prison fight alone shouldn't serve as an obstacle to Patil's bail. He underscored Nikam's point that Patil had been acquitted in four out of the nine cases against him.
The prosecution contended that these acquittals were due to witnesses turning hostile, allegedly as a result of intimidation by Patil.
However, the court took into account Nikam's assertion that Patil had no common offences with other gang members. Justice Karnik ultimately ruled in favour of granting bail to Patil, recognizing the protracted period of incarceration extending over nine years and the sluggish pace of the trial, which involved examining approximately 90 witnesses. To strike a balance between Patil's personal liberty and societal interests, the court ordered his release under stringent conditions. Notably, Patil would be prohibited from entering Maharashtra except for court appearances related to his ongoing cases.
Â
