IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prolonged pre-trial detention without a timely trial can infringe upon the constitutional right to personal liberty, and that the principle of parity can be applied in bail considerations when co-accused are similarly situated.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The applicant/accused No. 8, who is arraigned in C.R. No. 622 of 2016 registered at Yavat police station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sec. 395, 412, 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC), has preferred this application to enlarge him on bail.

2. The gravamen of indictment against the applicant and the co-accused is as under:- The applicant's brother Sachin Ithape, the accused No. 1 is the leader of an organized crime syndicate comprising accused Nos. 1 to 7. They are indulging in continuing unlawful activities within the meaning of MCOC Act, 1999. They commit dacoities armed with deadly weapons and implements of house breaking by night. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 share the stolen property and out of the proceeds of the crime acquired properties.

3. On 10/9/2016 at about 2 am, accused Nos. 1 to 7 committed dacoity at the District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, at Rahu, Tal. Daund. Dipak Bhalerao, the security guard and his associate Uttam Wagh were threatened on the point of knife. They were assaulted. Their hands and legs were tied. Thereafter, the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 entered the bank by cutting the iron grill of the rear window by means of a gas cutter. The strong room and iron safe were also broken open by the gas cutter. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 decamped with an amount of Rs.65,57,485.00.

4. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 distributed the stolen property amongst themselves. The amount which had fallen to the share of accused No. 1 was utilized by accused No. 8, the applicant herein, to acquire land bearing Gut No. 203 situated at Saygavhan, Tal. Kannad, Aurangabad jointly with Narayan Jadhav for a consideration of Rs.4,65,600.00. Mangal Ithape (accused No. 9), the mother of accused No. 1 had also purchased the house property at Gut No. 388/2B situated at Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, for Rs.16,94,931.00. Accused No. 10 Priyanka Lokare, who is the wife of accused No. 2 Dnaneshwar Lokare has purchased the house property at Chalisgaon and an agricultural land at Saygavhan, Tal. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad from out of the stolen property falling to the share of accused No. 2. The accused Nos. 8 to 10 are thus arraigned for having committed offences punishable under Sec. 3(5) and 4 of MCOC Act, 1999, besides allegedly being the members of organized crime syndicate and harbouring the members of organized crime syndicate, of which the accused No. 1 is the leader. The applicant came to be arrested on 20/11/2016. Post completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been lodged.

5. The applicant has preferred this application for bail on the grounds, inter alia, that the applicant had no role in the alleged dacoity. Nor there is any material to show that the applicant is the member of the organized crime syndicate. Not a single crime has been registered against the applicant. Thus, charge under Sec. 3 of MCOC Act, 1999 is wholly unsustainable qua the applicant. It is further asserted that the applicant has been in custody for more than five years. At best, the applicant can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 which entails a maximum punishment of ten years. Thus, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration as well.

6. An affidavit, in reply is filed on behalf of the respondents to resist the prayer for bail.

7. I have heard Mr. Ajinkya Kamble, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mrs. Lohkare, learned APP for the State at some length. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I have perused the report under Sec. 173 of the Code and the documents annexed with it.

8. Mr. Kamble, learned counsel for the applicant, would urge that the applicant deserves to be released on bail both on merits as well as on the ground of parity. Since the charge against the applicant is that of being in possession of property on behalf of accused No. 1, who is alleged to be a g