PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has granted bail to a 31-year-old Pune resident accused of stabbing a hotel receptionist in Mapusa, holding that his continued incarceration for over a year without conclusion of even a single witness examination amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Ashish Chavan, while allowing the bail plea of Swanand Kasabe, observed that the trial had progressed at a “snail’s pace” and that the delay was not attributable to any fault of the accused.
“...during the last one year, the evidence of not even one witness was concluded by the prosecution out of 36 witnesses proposed to be examined by them. A perusal of the roznamas of the Trial Court indicates that the delay is not only gross but also not attributable to any fault of the Applicant. The trial, which has progressed at a snail’s pace, leaves no doubt in my considered opinion that there is no likelihood of the evidence being concluded in the near future. This certainly is a violation of the right of the Applicant to a speedy trial, which is his constitutional right,” reads the order.
The accused was arrested on December 20, 2024, in connection with an alleged stabbing incident at a Mapusa hotel on December 19, 2024.
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly assaulted receptionist Sandesh Padloskar with a knife at the hotel reception counter following a verbal exchange over the whereabouts of the manager. The injured victim suffered a stab wound to the abdomen, described in the medico-legal certificate as a “dangerous injury”, along with facial injuries and a nasal bone fracture. He was hospitalised for five days and later discharged.
Finding no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, the court ruled that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail, subject to strict conditions.
The accused has been directed to execute a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, North Goa. He has been barred from leaving the State without prior permission of the trial court and restrained from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of bail and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
