1. Appeal against rejection of bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, involving prolonged incarceration without framing of charges. (Para 2 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.12939 of 2024)
Decided On : 18-12-2024
Important Points
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Bail application - The appellant challenged the rejection of his bail application by the learned Single Judge and Special Judge - The court found no error in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, emphasizing the twin conditions for bail under the Act - Prolonged incarceration without trial was highlighted as a violation of the right to a speedy trial, referencing the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The court reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon the accused's rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, aged 21 at arrest, has been incarcerated for five years without charges being framed, raising concerns about the right to a speedy trial.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, quashing the orders of the Special Court and the learned Single Judge, with stringent bail conditions imposed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to bail given the prolonged incarceration without trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prolonged incarceration without trial is tantamount to imposing a sentence without trial, violating the right to a speedy trial.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The court reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon the accused's rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, aged 21 at arrest, has been incarcerated for five years without charges being framed, raising concerns about the right to a speedy trial.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, quashing the orders of the Special Court and the learned Single Judge, with stringent bail conditions imposed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to bail given the prolonged incarceration without trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prolonged incarceration without trial is tantamount to imposing a sentence without trial, violating the right to a speedy trial.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21 (!) . - Bail under the Act requires satisfaction of twin conditions: reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and that they are not likely to commit an offence while on bail (!) . - The accused had been incarcerated for approximately five years without charges being framed (!) . - Prolonged incarceration without trial is tantamount to imposing a sentence without trial and affects the rights of both the accused and the victim (!) . - The appeal was allowed, quashing the orders denying bail, with stringent bail conditions imposed (!) (!) . - Directions issued to ensure the accused is produced before the trial judge on every date to prevent trial prolongation (!) .
What are the rights of an accused regarding a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution when subjected to prolonged incarceration without trial?
What is the condition for granting bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, as interpreted by the court in this case?
Does prolonged incarceration without framing of charges amount to imposing a sentence without trial?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argues MCOCA was wrongly invoked and cites prolonged incarceration; State contends the appellant is part of an organized criminal gang. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Prolonged incarceration without trial, specifically where charges are not framed for years, violates the right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Prolonged incarceration without trial, amounting to imposing a sentence without trial, justifies the grant of bail despite statutory twin conditions. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed, bail granted with conditions, and directions issued to ensure the production of accused persons to prevent trial delays. (Para 11 , 13 , 16 )
6. How does prolonged incarceration without trial affect the grant of bail under special statutes?
Prolonged incarceration without trial, especially when charges are not framed for years, can result in the accused facing a sentence without trial, violating the right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21, which may justify the grant of bail. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What is the relationship between the right to a speedy trial and statutory twin conditions for bail?
While statutory twin conditions may be required for bail, the right to a speedy trial is a facet of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and extreme delays in trial can outweigh these conditions to justify release. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
8. What directions did the court provide to prevent trial delays caused by the non-production of the accused?
The court directed the Registrar General of the High Court and State Secretaries to evolve a mechanism ensuring accused persons are produced before the Trial Judge, either physically or virtually, on every date. (Para 16 )
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2024, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant herein challenging the order passed by the Additional Special Judge (M.C.O.C. Act), Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Judge’), rejecting the application for bail filed by the appellant.
3. Shri Anand Dilip Landge, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the learned Special Judge have grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. It is submitted that relying solely on one criminal antecedent, the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the said Act’) have been invoked against the appellant herein. Relying on certain photographs, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not present at the place of the incident, inasmuch as he was 26 kms., away from the place where the incident occurred. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that when the appellant was arrested, he was 21 years of age and after approximately five years of incarceration, he is now 26 years of age. He, therefore, submits that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. The appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. Varad Kilor, learned counsel appearing for the State and Smt. Anagha S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as for the complainant that the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by an elaborate order, rejected the appeal of the appellant herein. It is submitted that the appellant is a part of a gang which has caused terror in the area and is indulging in criminal activities. Smt. Anagha S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the reliance sought to be placed by the appellant on the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813 : 2024 INSC 645. She therefore submits that no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
6. At the outset, we may state that the learned Single Judge by an elaborate and well reasoned order rejected the appeal of the appellant herein.
7. We, therefore, find no error in the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vishwnath Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561 : 2012 INSC 494.
8. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would reveal that the learned Judge has basically rejected the appeal on the ground that the twin conditions as required under the provisions of the said Act i.e. (i) Satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) He/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. While doing so, the learned Judge has given elaborate reasonings and has held that the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail.
9. However, it is to be noted that this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 : 2024 INSC 595 while considering the twin conditions, as applicable under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has held that prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence without undergoing the trial. In the said case of Manish Sisodia (supra), the Court has also held that the right to speedy trial is also one of the facets of the rights flowing from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), has been constantly followed in various other ju
