IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
Badal S/o Dhanraj Madke - Appellant
Vs..
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application (BA) No. 847 of 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 369, 370, and 120-B - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 75, 81, and 84 - Bail application filed for offences related to child trafficking - The applicant was arrested on 11.11.2022 and claims no involvement in human trafficking, asserting that the child was brought to his house for adoption. The trial is delayed due to co-accused facing charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act), which has kept the trial in abeyance. (Paras 2, 6, 11, 12, 34)
(B) Right to speedy trial - The court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the trial should not be unduly delayed. (Paras 10, 15, 34)
(C) Legislative intent of MCOC Act - The court clarified that Section 10 of the MCOC Act mandates precedence for trials under the Act, but does not prevent other trials from proceeding unless there is a clash of dates. (Paras 10, 24, 34)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of involvement in the trafficking of a child, allegedly facilitating the sale of the child for adoption. The trial has been delayed due to the proceedings against co-accused under the MCOC Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's involvement in human trafficking is serious, and the previous bail application was rejected on merits.
Issues: The main issues were the applicant's involvement in human trafficking, the delay in trial, and the interpretation of Section 10 of the MCOC Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's involvement in trafficking is serious, and the right to a speedy trial must be balanced against the gravity of the charges. The trial court must proceed with the trial without undue delay.
Result: The bail application is rejected.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. The present application is filed by the applicant for grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS (under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) in respect of Crime No.639/2022 registered at Police Station Kalamna, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 369, 370, and 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 75, 81, and 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
3. The applicant came to be arrested on 11.11.2022.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by one Rajkumari Raju Nishad alleging that on 10.11.2022 co-accused Yogendra Prajapati came to her house and took her eight months’ old child in the shop behind her house to purchase something for the child and not returned back. Thereafter, she searched for said Yogendra Prajapati. However, he along with his wife were absconding along with her child. As she could not find her child, she approached the police and lodged the report. During investigation, it revealed that co-accused Yogendra Prajapati has handed over the said child to one accused Farzana @ Anjum Ansar Qureshi and obtained consideration amount. Thereafter, accused Farzana @ Anjum Ansar Qureshi, Seema Parveen, Shweta Khan, and Sachin Patil abducted the said child and sold the said child to one Jitendra Jambhulkar for consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. The alleged transaction has taken place at the house of the applicant.
5. As per contentions of the applicant, his mother Laxmibai is doing the work of massage to the newly born children. Co-accused Sachin Patil met her and brought the child to the house for massage. Thereafter, all other accused came there and informed that the said child is to be given for adoption. Thereafter, he called one Khobragade as he was aware that said Khobragade was searching for somebody who will give child in adoption to his daughter. As said Sachin Patil represented him that the child is to be given in adoption, he called Khobragade and the child was handed over by the ca-accused. As far as abduction of the child and trafficking are concerned, he is not concerned with the same.
6. Initially, the applicant filed Criminal Application (BA) No.386/2023 which came to be rejected on 3.7.2023. Now, this application is filed by the applicant on the ground of delay in trial and the trial is kept in abeyance as the other co-accused are facing charge under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act). In view of Section 10 of the MCOC Act, the trial, in which the applicant is an accused in connection with Crime No.639/22, is kept in abeyance.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as far as involvement of the applicant is concerned, the same is not in human trafficking or kidnapping. Merely because the child was given in adoption in his house, he is implicated as an accused. Since the date of his arrest i.e. 11.11.2022, he is behind the bar and as other co-accused namely Sachin Patil, Shweta Khan are facing another trial, the provisions of the MCOC Act are invoked, the present trial is kept in abeyance. Thus, the applicant cannot be kept behind bar for indefinite period as there is no progress in the special court as far as trial of the other accused under the provisions of the MCOC Act is concerned. He submitted that the trial of the applicant is stayed in view of Section 10 of the MCOC Act and, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on following decisions:
1. Criminal Application No.2982/2004 decided by this court on 10.12.2004;
2. Criminal Application (BA) No.1147/2018 (Rohit alias Golu s/o Hariprasad Tiwari vs. State of Maharashtra, thr.PSO PS Ramnagar, District Nagpur) decided by this court on 20.9.2019;
3. Dashrath Bapu Shinde and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1981;
4. Criminal Application (BA) No.429/2024 (Dattatray Shrikru
AI
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and trials under the MCOC Act must not delay other proceedings unless necessary.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and trials should not be delayed indefinitely, even in cases involving serious charges like human trafficking.
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 can justify bail due to inordinate delays, despite the serious nature of criminal charges.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental; prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, regardless of the seriousness of the charges.
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
Constitutional Courts must grant bail to under-trials facing prolonged incarceration, recognizing their right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Prolonged pre-trial detention over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right, warranting bail despite serious narcotics offence gravity.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.