1992 JJ Hospital shootout: Court rejects 4th bail plea of 65-yr-old accused held for 8 years

Nearly 35 years after the infamous JJ Hospital shootout, in which gangster Shailesh Haldankar, another patient, and two on-duty constables were shot dead, a special court on Tuesday rejected the fourth bail application of Mohd Farooque Yasin Mansoor (65), who has spent over eight years in custody in the case, while directing that the trial be held twice a week to ensure its expeditious conclusion.

Special judge Satyanarayan Navander acknowledged that Mansoor’s prolonged incarceration raised serious concerns over his constitutional right to a speedy trial, but held that the circumstances did not warrant his release.

The case relates to the September 12, 1992 shootout at the state-run Sir JJ Hospital. According to the prosecution, members of fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim’s gang stormed the hospital and opened fire on Haldankar, an alleged member of the Arun Gawli gang, who was admitted there under police guard.

Haldankar, another patient, Bipin Shere, and two constables were killed. The attack was allegedly planned to avenge the murder of Dawood’s brother-in-law Ibrahim Ismail Parkar, who was killed in July 1992, with the Dawood gang suspecting members of Gawli’s gang of involvement.

Also Read:Spotlight returns to 1992 JJ Hospital shootout as TADA court records evidence against two accused

Mansoor is accused of providing shelter to the assailants at his residence, including Subhashsingh Thakur, Sunil Sawant, Brijesh Singh and another accused identified as Pradhan, and facilitating their escape. He was initially shown as a wanted accused in the charge sheet and arrested in April 2018 after remaining absconding for several years.

In his latest application, Mansoor argued that the trial had made little progress despite an earlier direction for its expeditious disposal. His lawyer, Smita Sonawane, submitted that no witness were examined between November 10, 2025, and July 15, 2026, and that the number of witnesses yet to be examined made an early conclusion of the trial unlikely.

She argued that keeping the 65-year-old behind bars for more than eight years without meaningful progress violated his right to a speedy trial. His age and medical ailments were also cited as grounds for bail.

Opposing the plea, special public prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves argued that the case involved multiple murders and a conspiracy attracting stringent provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). He also pointed to Mansoor’s prolonged absconding and the incriminating evidence emerging from earlier proceedings arising out of the same incident.

The prosecution attributed the delay partly to proceedings in a connected case arising from a supplementary charge sheet filed against another accused in April 2025. It also pointed out that the defence sought fresh recording of evidence in March 2026, arguing that testimony recorded during the earlier trial could not be relied upon in the present proceedings.

The prosecution also moved an application seeking permission to rely on the earlier testimony of witnesses who had since died, could not be traced or could not be brought before the court. The court said the delay in examining witnesses could not be attributed solely to prosecutorial inaction, given the proceedings and applications pending in the connected cases.

While holding that prolonged incarceration did not automatically entitle an accused to bail, the judge stressed that the right to a speedy trial could not remain a mere formality.

He directed that the case be listed every Monday and Tuesday, as far as practicable, and said the prosecution and defence must cooperate to ensure its conclusion at the earliest.

Mansoor’s previous three bail applications were rejected in September 2021, March 2024 and November 2025.