![\"HC:](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-131919992,imgsize-66372,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/hc-personal-liberty-under-article-21-not-absolute-cant-outweigh-public-safety.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNagpur: Observing that personal liberty cannot override the broader interests of society, Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court recently denied bail to a Chandrapur murder accused with multiple serious criminal cases, despite his prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.Justice MM Nerlikar rejected bail application filed by the murder accused, who has been in jail since Jan 26, 2024, in connection with a murder case registered at Ramnagar police station in Chandrapur.The court acknowledged that the accused remained behind bars for more than two years and four months and that charges were yet to be framed. However, the bench held that the accused’s extensive criminal antecedents and repeated involvement in violent offences outweighed his plea seeking protection under Article 21 of the Constitution.“Personal liberty is a cherished constitutional value, but it is not absolute. No individual can assert a freedom that imperils the life or liberty of others,” the court observed in its order.The case stems from murder of a contractor by the accused. The prosecution alleged that disputes arose between them over a two-wheeler purchased in the deceased’s name and unpaid loan instalments.Petitioner argued although chargesheet was filed on April 24, 2024, and matter was committed to sessions court in May 2024, charges still had not been framed. He contended the prolonged delay violated accused’s constitutional right to speedy trial and relied on recent SC judgments granting bail in cases involving long incarceration.Opposing the plea, assistant govt pleader AM Kadukar submitted the accused inflicted 14 injuries on the deceased and had 10 criminal cases registered against him. These included offences related to attempt to murder, grievous hurt, kidnapping, rioting and assault on public servants.The prosecution further informed the court that the petitioner’s earlier bail application was already rejected on merit and that the apex court also refused to interfere with that order.The bench noted that while the accused secured acquittals in four cases, six serious criminal cases were still pending against him. It observed that he repeatedly committed offences despite being granted bail.Justice Nerlikar observed that although courts have granted bail in cases involving prolonged custody, “petitioner is a menace to society” and, therefore, did not deserve relief.<\/div>\n