The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay rejected the bail application of Shankar Gunashekhar Harijan, a laborer arrested on an outstanding Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) in a two-decade-old theft case. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne (Court Room No. 30), in an order dated April 26, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 992 of 2024, found that the applicant’s past conduct of repeatedly failing to appear for his trial and abiding by previous bail conditions was a decisive factor against his release. Mr. Harijan was facing trial for the commission of the offense punishable under Section 380 (Theft in dwelling house, etc.) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), stemming from C.R. No. 25/2004 registered with Sewree Police Station, Mumbai.

The Case History: A Trial Stalled for Two Decades

The factual background of the case is remarkable for its age. The original crime was registered in 2004, and the charge against the accused was formally framed on June 9, 2004. Despite this early stage of the judicial process, the trial could not proceed because the accused, Shankar Harijan, failed to remain present in court. The case lingered on the docket for years, remaining at the stage of the NBW execution. The court records (roznama) presented during the bail hearing confirmed that the trial had been pending on this very issue—the absence of the accused—since prior to the year 2019, suggesting a prolonged period of willful non-appearance spanning many years, if not the entire two decades. This delay led to the case being designated as a “very old” matter, directly attributable to the accused’s conduct.

Judicial Reasoning: Past Conduct as the Determinative Factor

The bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was opposed by the prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar. The prosecution’s opposition was not focused on the gravity of the original theft charge, which is relatively moderate, but entirely on the applicant’s past conduct. The prosecution argued that given the accused had failed to remain present and abide by the conditions of his previous bail for such an extended period, there was a high likelihood that he would “flee away from justice” once released again. .

The Sessions Judge strongly concurred with the prosecution’s assessment. The judicial reasoning explicitly stated that the application was rejected after considering “the age of the case and past conduct of accused who remained absent for several years.” In a situation where the accused’s non-appearance is the singular reason a criminal trial has been effectively stalled for twenty years, the court found that granting bail would not only reward the accused’s obstructionist behavior but would also be a detriment to the administration of justice. The principle of bail—which requires the court to be confident that the accused will secure his presence for trial—was fundamentally undermined by the applicant’s demonstrated history of evasion. The Court implicitly ruled that while liberty is a right, it is forfeited when the accused systematically abuses judicial process and causes an extreme delay in an already overburdened legal system. The application was therefore rejected and disposed of accordingly, signifying the court’s firm stance against judicial absenteeism.