HC cites prolonged custody, non-framing of charge
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa granted bail to Vikrant Shetty, accused of alleged involvement in six fraudulent sale deeds. The court cited prolonged custody, non-framing of the charge and the unlikelihood of a time-bound trial conclusion while granting bail on personal bond of Rs 5 lakh and other set of conditions.
Shetty has been in custody for 10 months since his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on charges that he was allegedly involved in six sale deeds in which documents were executed on the basis of forged and false records.
During the hearing of the criminal miscellaneous application for bail, Advocate Vibhav Amonkar, representing Shetty, argued that the chargesheet against 36 accused including Shetty was filed but the case remains at the preliminary hearing stage.
“The Court has not fixed the matter for arguments for framing of charge. The Applicant (Shetty) is in custody for the last 10 months and his further custody is now not required,” he said further pointing at procedural delays and that some accused are yet to be arrested.
Special Public Prosecutor S Samant opposed the bail claiming seriousness of the offense and alleging Shetty’s role in a conspiracy involving the illegal acquisition and sale of properties. The modus operandi included fabricating succession trails, altering archival records and executing fraudulent property transactions. “The Applicant and other two co-conspirators even engaged some persons to create a fake trail of succession, change the pages of inscription and description and create other documents… at present and as per investigation, 178 such properties could be considered for creating such transfer documents and available in the market for sale,” Samant submitted.
The Bench of Justice Bharat Deshpande observed that Shetty had been cooperative during the investigation and the chargesheet is filed without any charges framed so far. The Court further observed that further custody would be punitive, especially when the trial’s conclusion is uncertain due to the pendency of sessions court cases.
“The Applicant is in custody for the last 10 months. Though the chargesheet is filed, till date the charges are not framed. Chargesheet shows that there are many accused persons and the prosecution relied upon 36 witnesses, various document are involved which is clear from the volume of the chargesheet which runs into 7000 pages,” it said adding,
“The contention of SPP Samant that the Respondents (ED and SPP) would conclude the trial in a time-bound manner, is difficult to digest, looking at the pendency of the said Court and the fact that it is burdened with all other session trial matters.”
The Court also observed that there are around 36 accused out of whom some are still in the stage of appearance before the Court. “Even the charge is not framed till date. Thus there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in a time bound manner and near future,” the Court said while granting conditional bail.
