IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that prolonged pre-trial detention can infringe on the constitutional right to a speedy trial, justifying bail even under stringent laws.

JUDGMENT :

Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Admit. Learned Special Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. By this appeal, preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, ('NIA Act’), the appellant seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 5th February 2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in Bail Application (Exhibit–445) filed in Special Case No.7 of 2013, by which, the appellant’s application (Exhibit–445) seeking his enlargement on bail, came to be rejected by the said Court. Accordingly, the appellant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 9 of 2012 registered with the Anti Terrorism Squad Police Station (‘ATS’), Mumbai (Original C.R. No.168 of 2012, registered with the Deccan Police Station, Pune), for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307, 435 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’); Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act; Sections 16(1)(b), 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 (‘UAPA’) as amended in 2008; and, under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (‘MCOC Act').

4. Admittedly, the appellant’s first appeal being Criminal Appeal No.299 of 2022 seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with the aforesaid C.R. was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27th September 2022, having regard to Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA, after observing that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true. The said order dismissing the appellant’s first appeal seeking his enlargement on bail is at Exhibit – A, at page 27 of the appeal.

5. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the appellant on the ground of delay in the trial, resulting in infringement of the appellant’s constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. right to speedy trial.

6. Mr. Solkar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody i.e. pre-trial detention, since 26th December 2012 i.e. for almost 11 ½ years. He submits that although the incident took place in December 2012, charge came to be framed in the said case only in 2022 and it is only in February 2024 that the first witness stepped into the witness-box. Learned counsel submits that despite this Court’s order dated 27th September 2022 expediting the appellant’s trial, till date, the prosecution has examined only 7 witnesses and that the 8th witness is in the witness-box. He submits that the prosecution had made a statement that although there are 300 odd witnesses, they propose to examine only 107 witnesses. He submits that since no death had occurred, none of the offences are punishable with death and that the minimum sentence for the offences with which the appellant is charged under the UAPA are under 5 years, extending upto imprisonment for life. He submits that although charge was framed on 4th April 2022, for the offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w 120B, Sections 435 r/w 120B of the IPC and Section 16(1)(b) of the UAPA against the appellant in addition to the other Sections under the IPC, UAPA as well as under MCOC Act, the aforesaid Sections i.e. Sections 307 r/w 120B, Sections 435 r/w 120B of the IPC and Section 16(1)(b) of the UAPA came to be amended and as such deleted qua the appellant on 20th April 2022. Mr. Solkar relied on the roznama which is there in the compilation of the documents tendered by him. Mr. Solkar submits that after the said ground was argued before this Court i.e. the appellant is not charged for the offences under Sections 307 r/w 120B of the IPC and other sections, the prosecution clandestinely moved an application and again got the said sections added and that now the appellant has moved the trial Court, pointing to the conduct of the