IMPORTANT POINT
[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 established a clear case against the accused.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Applicant is seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. 517 of 2016 registered with Akluj Police Station, Solapur Rural for offences punishable under Sec. 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(25) of the Arms Act. Subsequently charge under Sec. 307 altered to Sec. 302 of IPC. During the course of investigation provisions of MCOC Act were invoked under Ss. 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'MCOC Act').

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the FIR was lodged by Aniket Jalinder Umbre on 29/12/2016. It is alleged that, the complainant and his maternal uncle Nanasaheb Dilip Aasbe were talking in front of Ashwini Hotel. Two persons aged about 25 years arrived there on motorcycle with mask on their faces. They fired at Nanasaheb Aasbe. He tried to run from the place of incident. The accused again fired at him. Nanasaheb Aasbe succumbed to the injuries. On completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

3. The previous application preferred by applicant was rejected vide order dtd. 4/3/2020.

4. Applicant had preferred Petition for Special leave to Appeal No.51 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Petition was rejected vide order dtd. 20/1/2022. However, considering the fact that, Applicant has been in custody for more than four years and if there is no progress in the trial for the next six months, liberty was granted to the Applicant to move the High Court at that stage for grant of bail.

5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that, Applicant is in custody for a period of five years and three months. There is no progress in the trial. Charge is not framed. List of witnesses provided along with charge-sheet which is part of record indicate that, there are about 100 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution. There are no criminal antecedents against the Applicant. Applicant is not named in the FIR. There is no evidence to show that, the Applicant is a member of crime syndicate. Applicant was not present at the spot of incident. Applicant has not delayed the trial. Long incarceration in custody without trial affects the liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Yogesh Vinod Ahiwale Vs. The State of Maharashtra delivered in Special Leave to Appeal No.8496 of 2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dtd. 14/10/2022;

(ii) Mohammad Iliyas Mohammad Bilal Kapadiya Vs. State of Gujarat;2022 SCC OnLine SC 713.

(iii) Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., 2022 ALL MR (Cri) 2282 (SC). (iv) Vishal Madhukar Khedekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra delivered in Criminal Bail Application No.1413 of 2021 passed by this Court vide order dtd. 20/10/2022;

(v) Ajit Bhagwan Tiwde Vs. State of Maharashtra delivered in Criminal Bail Application No.995 of 2021 passed by this Court vide order dtd. 19/1/2022.

7. Learned APP submitted that, the previous application preferred by Applicant has been rejected by this Court on merits. There is no change in circumstance. The provisions of MCOC Act are invoked in the present case. Offence is of serious nature. During the course of investigation, statement of the accused Ramesh Dhule was recorded under Sec. 18 of the MCOC Act. He has disclosed the involvement of the Applicant in the crime. The prosecution proposes to examine 88 witnesses. Trial may be expedited. Learned APP tendered the affidavit-in-reply opposing application for bail. The same is taken on record.

8. Applicant is in custody from 23/10/2017. Charge is not yet framed. The prosecution proposes to examine about 88 witnesses. The next date for hearing before the Trial Court is on 14/2/2023 and the purpose indicated in the Roznama is for framing of charge. Learned advocate for the Applicant has produced the Roznama for perusal which does not indicate that the Applicant had delayed the trial.

9. In the case of Yogesh Vino