IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes a violation of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and bail should not be withheld as a punitive measure.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.

1. The present proceedings are peppered with a chequered history. The quintessential thrust, however, is on the Petitioner's grievance of being incarcerated for more that seven and half years for offences for which he claims to have undergone the maximum sentence. The protest of the Petitioner against his prolonged incarceration traveled up to the Apex Court by way of separate Special Leave Petitions against Orders passed by this Court rejecting his Bail Application/s as well as on admission of the present Petition on a limited issue. All the SLP's were dismissed albeit with certain observations/directions. In reference to the Special Leave Petition against the Order on a limited admission of this Petition, the Supreme Court vide its Order dated 1st April 2024 granted liberty to the Petitioner to make submissions on all reliefs claimed in this Petition. We were requested to consider all the submissions made on merits and dispose off this Petition expeditiously considering the long incarceration of the Petitioner. In this backdrop, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

2. Vide Order dated 5th September 2023, this Petition was admitted only in terms of prayer clause (b) raising an arguable issue, as to whether an accused while being tried under the provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 ("MPID Act") can simultaneously be tried under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 1st April 2024 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) Diary No 51460 of 2023, Rule is issued on all the prayers in the Petition and is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. After the matter was heard for some time, Mr. Subhash Jha, learned counsel representing the Petitioner on instructions sought leave to withdraw all prayers in the Petition save and except prayer clause (f) seeking to be set at liberty on account of having suffered long incarceration as an under trial for the maximum period with which he claims, he could be convicted. We thus, restrict our finding only to this prayer, reserving liberty to the Petitioner to raise all other issues before the trial Court during the trial.

3.1. Trial has progressed, charge has been framed-two witnesses have been examined.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that, F.I.R.No. 223 of 2016 was registered at the Vanrai Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, Unit-9, Crime Branch, Mumbai (EOW) and the said crime was renumbered as C.R.No.73 of 2016 with addition of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act. Section 2 of the MPID Act was added in the form of alteration of charge. The MPID Special Case No.8 of 2016 arising from the above is now pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai ("Designated Court"). Charges are framed vide Order dated 14th February 2023 and the prosecution has examined two witnesses.

5. The contention of the First Informant one Dr. Kedar N. Ganla, a Gynecologist and Fertility Physician is that, he was introduced to the Petitioner in April 2013 by common friends. The Petitioner and his wife represented that, they operated various financial schemes of long and shortterm maturities with high assured returns. They gave attractive presentations and lured the informant and his friends into investing huge amounts in various funds. It is his say that during the period between 27th November 2013 and 30th October 2014, he invested Rs.9.65 Crores through cheques and cash through various entities of the Petitioner's family. The general terms of the scheme assured a return of 180% over and above the principal invested amount. Despite requests made by the informant, the Petitioner refused to execute agre