Back
B. R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
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 (!) .
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 ye
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
[The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial can warrant the granting of bail, especially when the prosecution has not estab....
Prolonged pre-trial detention can justify bail under Article 21, emphasizing individual liberty rights even amidst stringent statutory limits.
The right to a speedy trial must be balanced against the gravity of the offence and potential risks to public safety, even in cases of prolonged judicial custody.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
