COVID did not succeed in affecting prisoners, accused more secure in jail: Mumbai Court rejects interim bail to two accused of murder, dacoity

Interim bail pleas moved in view of the prevailing second wave of COVID-19 and the Mucormycosis pandemic by two men accused in a double murder and dacoity case were recently rejected by a Mumbai Court, wich also observed that the situation in jail appears to be more secure than outside it. (Pradeep Rajbhar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra).Additional Sessions Judge DD Khoche observed that due to the care taken by the jail authorities, the COVID-19 virus "could not succeed in entering and affecting prisoners in jail". ."Rather, as compared with the daily working people in the society who are usually exposed to outside social atmosphere, applicants/accused can be observed as comparatively in secure situation in jail", the Court said..The Judge at the Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai also noted that the second wave of the pandemic was under control..Indian artist Chintan Upadhyay and co-accused Pradeep Rajbhar, the applicants in the present case, were accused of killing Upadhyay's wife and her lawyer. .The prosecution's case is that Upadhyay was the main conspirator who had promised to pay Ra 20 lakhs to Pradeep and another accused for killing his wife and her lawyer. .Upadhyay, lodged in Thane Central Prison since 2015, submitted in his bail application that there had been a colossal surge of COVID-19 and its second wave variant in the prison..He apprised the Court that the situation in the prison was grim as the variant was spreading fast and it came with the Mucormycosis fungal infection..He also pointed out that being the only son to his aged parents, he felt duty-bound to take care of his parents who had not seen him in the last 5 and half years. He assured the Court that he belonged to a respectable family and was a well-known artist internationally. .The second applicant, Pradeep Rajbhar, contended that in view of the spread of the COVID virus and Mucormycosis in prisons and the existing guidelines by the Supreme Court to grant bail to undertrial prisoners, he ought to be released on temporary bail. He submitted that he had old parents and a younger brother to care for in his house..The Crime Branch, Mumbai Police, opposed the bail applications. They contended that the offences alleged against the two applicants were publishable with life or capital punishment. It submitted further that both applicants were not permanent residents of Mumbai. As such, it was not proper to release them on temporary bail, it was argued. .Special Public Prosecutor Vaibhav Bagade informed the Court that the jail authorities were taking utmost care of the prisoners and ensuring that new entrants to the prison are tested for COVID-19..To decide on the matter, the Sessions Judge various material placed before the Court, including the charge sheet. While the Court examined the progress in the trial, it refused to delve into the merits in the case..The Court was also informed by Upadhyay that the Supreme Court had directed that the trial be expedited. While noting that the apex Court had refused bail to Upadhyay on merits, the Judge acknowledged that the trial could not be completed within the time given by the Supreme Court. .However, the Court observed that the trial was being conducted twice a week in light of the pandemic and hard efforts were being taken.."Unfortunately in Pandemic Covid19 situation, applicants/accused are required to stay in jail for some prolonged period" the order stated. .The Court opined that even if the feelings and the concerns of the applicants may be accepted in view of the pandemic, considering that the trial was proceeding and there did not seem to be a specific recommendation from the High Power Committee to release prisoners accused of murder temporarily, the Court was not inclined to grant interim bail. .The Court proceeded to dismiss the bail applications, while also noting that the Sessions Court was trying its best to expedite the trial and to dispose of the matter. ."The routine is coming to the normal situation and either in this week or in next week, Court will start with full fledge working. Thus, taking into consideration, all these aspects, temporary bail application filed by both the applicants/accused cannot be considered", the order stated. .[Read order]