The Bombay High Court granted bail to Ganesh Mendarkar, a 51-year-old murder accused incarcerated for over nine years, emphasizing the devastating mental and physical effects of prolonged imprisonment on undertrials. Justice Milind Jadhav underscored that extended jail terms without trial violate the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court cited research and psychological studies to highlight how extended imprisonment damages mental health. Quoting Dr. Christian Jarret’s 2018 BBC article “How Prison Changes People”, Justice Jadhav remarked:
“Day after day, year after year, imagine having no space to call your own, no choice over who to be with... Love or even a gentle human touch can be difficult to find. You are separated from family and friends...”
The judgment noted that Mendarkar’s nine-year incarceration could lead to Post-Incarceration Syndrome (PICS), akin to PTSD, causing depression, anxiety, and drug abuse. The court also highlighted overcrowded prisons, citing Mumbai’s Arthur Road Jail housing 220–250 inmates in barracks meant for 50.
Case Background
Mendarkar was arrested in 2016 for offenses under Sections 302 (murder), 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death), and others. While three co-accused were granted bail earlier, his plea was delayed due to prolonged trial proceedings. Of 36 witnesses, only four had testified since 2018.
The prosecution sought three more months to conclude the trial but failed to assure timely completion. The court noted Mendarkar’s HIV-positive status and ongoing treatment but stressed that “long incarceration itself justified bail.”
The court relied on landmark judgments to uphold the “bail is rule, jail exception” principle:
Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI (2022): Highlighted overcrowded prisons and undertrials’ rights.
Hussainara Khatoon vs Bihar (1980): Linked speedy trial to Article 21.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978): Expanded “life and liberty” to include dignity.
Justice Jadhav emphasized that courts must balance societal safety with individual liberty, especially when trials drag indefinitely.
The court anchored its decision in landmark legal precedents to reinforce the principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” Central to this reasoning was the 2022 Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI, which underscored the plight of overcrowded prisons and the rights of undertrials to timely justice.
The bench also invoked the 1980 ruling in Hussainara Khatoon vs Bihar, where the Supreme Court explicitly linked the right to a speedy trial with the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty under Article 21. Further, the 1978 verdict in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India was cited, which expanded the scope of “life and personal liberty” to encompass human dignity and fair procedure.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Warns: Casual Use of UP Gangsters Act Violates Civil Liberties
Justice Jadhav stressed that while societal safety remains paramount, courts must prioritize individual liberty when trials face indefinite delays, ensuring a balance between public interest and fundamental rights.
Bail Conditions
Mendarkar’s release was contingent on stringent terms designed to safeguard judicial integrity. He was ordered to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with one or two sureties of equivalent value. Additionally, he must report monthly to the investigating officer at the local police station for three months, appearing every third Saturday between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m.
The court barred him from leaving Maharashtra without prior permission and mandated full cooperation with trial proceedings, including attending all hearings unless formally exempted. A stern warning accompanied these conditions: any violation, such as influencing witnesses or seeking unnecessary adjournments, would prompt immediate cancellation of bail. These measures aim to ensure accountability while respecting the applicant’s right to liberty amid prolonged legal uncertainty.
