Summary
The Court granted conditional bail to Lt. Col. Purohit in the Malegaon blast prosecution after approximately eight years and eight months in custody. Material differences between the ATS and NIA charge sheets, the intelligence-duty explanation and doubts concerning recovery supplied fresh grounds for reconsideration. The observations were provisional and did not determine guilt, statutory objections or other accused persons’ bail claims.
Issues
- Whether fresh circumstances and prolonged custody justified bail after earlier refusals.
- What limits and conditions should accompany the relief.
Held
- Successive bail applications require consideration of earlier refusal grounds and identification of fresh circumstances. Variations between investigative versions, the intelligence explanation and recovery concerns, together with prolonged custody and likely trial duration, justified relief here without choosing a final evidentiary version. (¶¶ 14–18, 20–24)
- Bail required reasoned discretion considering the accusation, potential punishment, evidence, witness risks and prima facie case. Community sentiment alone could not justify denial. The applicability of Section 43-D(5) and sanction objection were left for trial. (¶ 19–23)
- Release required one-lakh-rupee personal security with two solvent sureties each of like amount, attendance, cooperation, no witness interference, permission before foreign travel and passport deposit. Breach could support modification or recall. Neither guilt nor other accused persons’ entitlement was decided. (¶ 24–26)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court refusal set aside and conditional bail granted. Intervention allowed; trial merits and individual bail claims of other accused remained open.