Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
M. S. KARNIK
Sumit – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned PP.
2. The applicant- original accused no.4 is seeking bail connection with C.R. No.19 of 2016 registered with D.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sec. 452, 307, 34 read with Sec. 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC", for short) and Sec. 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; Sec. 37(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Police Act as well as Sec. 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOC", for short). The applicant is in custody since 16/02/2016. The date of the incident is 05/02/2016.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is under incarceration for a long period of time i.e. almost for 6 years and 10 months and therefore should be granted the facility of releasing him on bail. There is undoubtedly substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is under incarceration for quite a long period and in or
The advanced stage of the trial and the likelihood of its conclusion soon outweighed the long period of incarceration, leading to the rejection of the bail application.
[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....
The court ruled that the applicant's involvement in organized crime and conspiracy to commit murder, supported by substantial evidence, justified the rejection of bail under the MCOC Act.
The court balanced the seriousness of the offence with the prolonged incarceration and the incomplete trial in granting bail to the applicant.
Prolonged detention without trial must be balanced against stringent bail conditions, recognizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
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.
The court established that prolonged detention without trial, coupled with the complexities of the allegations involving co-accused complainants, can warrant the granting of bail under the Code of Cr....
Constitutional Courts must grant bail to under-trials facing prolonged incarceration, recognizing their right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
The main legal point established is the court's discretion to grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the MCOC Act, based on the constitutional right to a speedy trial and the lack of direct ....
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
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
Listen Article