Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Divya Ashok Pahuja in Fake Encounter Case After Almost 7 Years in Custody

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent Judgement , the Bombay High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Prakash D. Naik, granted bail to Divya Ashok Pahuja in a high-profile fake encounter case. The court observed, "An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant's right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent's rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected."

Divya Ashok Pahuja, who has been in custody for nearly 7 years, had filed a bail application (No. 354 of 2023) in connection with the case registered under Sections 302, 193, 182, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 325 and 327 of the Arms Act. The case pertains to a fake encounter involving the deceased Sandeep Gadoli.

The court considered various factors in its decision, including the prolonged period of incarceration, the lack of progress in the trial, and the fact that the applicant was a woman with no criminal antecedents. It noted that the applicant was in custody for a substantial period, having been arrested on July 14, 2016. The court further highlighted that despite previous orders to expedite the trial, there had been no significant progress.

Justice Naik also emphasized the importance of timely trials and the protection of personal liberty. The court referred to previous Supreme Court judgments that emphasized the need to balance the seriousness of charges with the period of custody and the likelihood of trial completion. It further underscored that the denial of speedy justice posed a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice.

Considering these factors, the court granted bail to Divya Ashok Pahuja, subject to certain conditions. These conditions include executing a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with sureties, reporting to the local police station once a month, attending court hearings regularly, providing contact details and a residential address to the trial court, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the country without court permission.

This judgment by the Bombay High Court serves as a significant development in the case, bringing relief to Divya Ashok Pahuja after a prolonged period of incarceration. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring timely trials and protecting the rights of individuals held in custody, striking a balance between the gravity of charges and the period of custody.

Date of Decision: 20th June, 2023

Divya Ashok Pahuja   vs State Of Maharashtra 

Latest Legal News