Farooq Shaukat Bagwan, one of the accused in the 2012 Pune serial blasts case, has been granted bail by the Bombay High Court after spending more than twelve years in custody without his trial coming to an end. Arrested in December 2012, Bagwan faced charges under multiple stringent laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Explosives Act, the Arms Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). Despite the severity of the accusations, his prolonged pre-trial detention and the slow pace of proceedings became central to the court’s decision to release him.
The case itself relates to a series of five low-intensity blasts that rocked Pune on August 1, 2012, between 7:25 pm and 11:30 pm. Although one person sustained injuries, a major tragedy was averted when a sixth bomb was successfully defused from a bicycle’s carrier basket on Jangli Maharaj Road. Initially registered at the Deccan Police Station, the investigation was later handed over to the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). According to the prosecution, the attacks were carried out as retribution for the custodial death of Indian Mujahideen operative Qateel Siddique in Yerwada Jail earlier that year. Bagwan was accused of assisting the conspiracy by forging documents used to procure SIM cards and by allowing his shop to serve as a meeting point for planning the blasts.
During the bail hearing, the prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Vinod Chate, strongly opposed Bagwan’s release. The state relied on confessional statements and highlighted his alleged role in facilitating the conspiracy. However, Bagwan’s counsel, Advocate Mubin Solkar, argued that the circumstances warranted bail. Solkar pointed out that another co-accused, Munib Iqbal Memon, had already been granted bail by the High Court in 2024, establishing a precedent of parity. He further stressed that out of nearly 170 witnesses, only 27 had been examined over the span of twelve years, making it clear that the trial was moving at a glacial pace.
A division bench consisting of Justices A. S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil agreed with the defense’s arguments, emphasizing the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The court noted that Bagwan’s role was similar to that of the co-accused who had already secured bail, and therefore, the principle of parity applied directly in his case. The judges also observed that the likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future was “remote,” making his continued detention unjustifiable.
While granting bail, the court laid down stringent conditions to ensure compliance. Bagwan has been directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, report to the ATS office once every month, and adhere to strict travel restrictions. These safeguards aim to balance his right to liberty with the need to ensure that the trial process is not obstructed.
The order reflects a broader concern over the delay in terror-related trials in India, where prolonged pre-trial detentions often result in individuals spending years behind bars without conviction. For Bagwan, the decision marks a significant turn after more than a decade in custody, but for the judicial system, it underscores the pressing need to address systemic delays that erode the constitutional guarantee of speedy justice.
