The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Vivekanand Sudhir Pise and Rahul Pandurangan Mandri, who were implicated in the 2011 Kurar quadruple murder case. The court noted that their detention for over 13 years without the conclusion of a trial constitutes prolonged pre-trial punishment.
Justice Milind Jadhav stated, “If the prosecution cannot prosecute and complete the trial in such a long period of time, particularly given the current stage of the trial, there is no justification for the constitutional court to accept the prosecution’s assertion that the trial would be concluded in the foreseeable future, thus unnecessarily prolonging the suffering of the accused.”
Both men were arrested in August 2011, and their bail requests had previously been denied, even by the Supreme Court last year. Their attorney highlighted the serious nature of the crime, yet underscored the delays in the trial process and noted that co-accused individuals in the case had been granted bail.
Justice Jadhav pointed out the significant delay despite the prosecution’s best efforts, stating, “There is no doubt that the trial is delayed for various reasons… The applicants have been incarcerated for more than 13 years, 7 months, and 11 days, which calls for the court’s consideration of their bail applications.”
The crime in question occurred in June 2011, when the partially charred and naked bodies of four young men—Chetan Dhule (24), Dinesh Ihire (26), Ganesh Karanje (24), and Bharat Kudle (27)—were found on remote hillocks near Kurar village in Mumbai. The prosecution alleged that local gang leader Uday Pathak orchestrated the victims’ kidnapping and murder with the assistance of 17 accomplices following a minor confrontation the previous evening.
Trial proceedings were interrupted when Pathak requested a stay on the Sessions case until a related case under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) was resolved. The Sessions court granted this request in August 2023, putting the trial on hold.
Justice Jadhav acknowledged the severity of the crime but emphasized the issue of prolonged incarceration, remarking, “The length of incarceration pending trial cannot be overlooked.” The court’s ruling illustrates the delicate balance between addressing the gravity of the offense and safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.
