Fourth bail plea of accused fitness trainer rejected
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has rejected the fourth bail application filed by celebrity fitness trainer Gaurav Bidre, who is facing trial in the alleged killing of assistant professor Gauri Achari in June 2022, holding that there was no change in circumstances and that trial had already commenced with a fixed schedule in place.
Justice Shreeram Shirsat observing that although the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right, it cannot be invoked mechanically in serious offences when the trial is progressing and a definitive trial programme has been laid down.
Bidre’s counsel had sought bail citing inordinate delay in the trial.
“There cannot be any doubt that there is a right to speedy trial which is a fundamental right. However, here it is not the case where trial has not commenced at all,” the court observed, adding that the trial court is making a steady headway in the trial.
Bidre is charged under Sections 365 (kidnapping), 342 (wrongful confinement), 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code. He has been in judicial custody since June 24, 2022.
Justice Shirsat further held that mere length of custody cannot, by itself, justify bail in grave offences. “...sufficient and proper opportunity is also required to be given to the trial court to conduct trial in a fair manner and not to put fetters and hasten up just to conclude the trial which can be detrimental, both to the prosecution as well as to the defence. The offence with which the applicant is charged is a serious offence and therefore adequate opportunity needs to be given to the trial court as well, to conduct the trial in a proper manner,” the Bench further said adding, ‘It would have been a different case, if the trial would not have commenced till date and no witnesses would have been examined, which is not the case, as the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses, albeit delay. It cannot be said that there is an absolute rule that because there is a long period of incarceration, bail must necessarily be granted, especially in a serious offence like the present one with which the applicant has been charged’.
The court also took note of the prosecution’s submission that the offence was serious and that there was apprehension of witness intimidation if the accused were released on bail. It was further pointed out that another criminal case is pending against him.
