The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to MCOCA accused Dipak Patil, but under stringent conditions.
Delays in the trial process resulted in charges being framed over the last 9 years.
The prosecution’s case suggested that 6 individuals, with Patil as the main attacker, murdered a man in 2014.
Reports accused Patil of being contracted to kill a man whose wife had a boyfriend before their marriage. 2 eyewitness statements recorded by the Karad police in Satara district claimed to have seen Patil firing at the victim.
Furthermore, the prosecution objected to the grant of bail due to the severity of the crime and Patil’s criminal record, which included 9 different cases. Patil’s attorney, Aniket Nikam, brought attention to his extended incarceration, he was arrested on August 19, 2014, and has been in custody for over 9 years.
Nikam argued, “Only charges have been framed. The prosecution intends to examine at least 90 witnesses, and there may be more.” He contended that his client grounds to be released on bail.
However, the prosecution countered by pointing to Section 21(4) of MCOCA.
According to this provision, for bail to be granted, the court must have reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is innocent and unlikely to commit further offences. They presented evidence of Patil’s propensity to commit violent acts a prison fight 4 years ago involving 6 inmates, including Patil, assaulting someone.
In response, Justice MS Karnik stated that the prison fight alone shouldn’t bar Patil from being granted bail. Citing Nikam, he noted that Patil had been acquitted in 4 out of 9 cases.
The prosecution clarified that acquittals occurred when witnesses became hostile due to an alleged intimidation by Patil.
However, the court acknowledged Nikam’s argument that Patil had no common offences with any other gang members.
Justice Karnik decreed, “Considering the long incarceration period of over nine years and the trial’s slow progress with around 90 witnesses to be examined, Patil can be granted bail.”
He ruled release under the stringent conditions, aiming to balance Patil’s personal liberty with societal interest. Patil would not be allowed to enter Maharashtra except for court appearances in his ongoing cases.
