IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – When accused seeks bail on the ground of long incarceration, it is bounden duty of court to see that long incarceration has been on account of delay attributable to accused person.

JUDGMENT

R.M. Joshi, J.—It is high time, that the Courts are required to distinguish between genuine cases of long incarceration and the trial being not proceeded for reasons attributable to the Accused persons. Without considering this issue and unless facts of case justify the grant of bail, whether only on the ground of long incarceration bail can be granted more particularly when apparent concerted acts are seen from accused before the Trial Court to ensure that the Trial is not commenced, or even if it commences does not get over in reasonable time and ground of long incarceration is created.

2. Present applicant is seeking bail in connection with CR. No. 286 of 2021 registered at the instance of GRP Dadar Railway Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 387, 392, 195(a), 506(2), 507, 120(b) 384, 385, 212 224, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 37(1)(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police act, r/w Sections 3(2) 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) r/w 4 of the MCOC Act, 1999. 3. In short it is case of prosecution, that the accused persons are running a gang for extortion money from street vendors on 07.04.2021 at about 2:30 PM. accused no.1 went to the informant and questioning him for not paying the extortion amount. When he resisted, he was abused and assaulted by the accused no.1. On the basis of said incident First Information Report came to be lodged. The allegation against the present applicant is that after the report was lodged, he threatened the informant to withdraw the complaint. Supplementary statement came to be recorded of the informant to that effect.

4. During the course of the investigation, agency found this to be an organized crime and hence, provisions of MCOC Act came to be made applicable.

5. During the investigation statements number of witnesses came to be recorded indicating that the accused collecting extorted money from the street vendor. On conclusion of investigation chargesheet is filed. Since Trial Court rejected the application for present bail application.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that applicant is in jail for a period of 4 years and 7 months and considering the fact that trial is not likely to be heard in reasonable time, he is entitled for bail. He further argues that the offence charged against the applicant even if accepted under the MCOC Act is punishable with minimum sentence of 5 years. He further submits that there is no allegation against the applicant that he participated in the extortion or assaulted the informant. According to him, the alleged role against the applicant that he threatened the complainant to withdraw the complaint lodged against the accused no.1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused persons are granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025. Thus, on merits so also on the ground of long incarceration, he seeks enlargement of applicant on bail.

7. In response thereto, Learned APP submits that the role attributed against the present applicant is different than the one alleged against the co-accused. Learned APP further opposed the application by contending that prima-facie there is evidence on record indicating that there is well thought design on the part of the accused person not only in commission of the crime but also to ensure that trial is not proceeded further. By relying upon Rozanama of the trial Court proceeding it is argued that there is ample material on record to indicate that jointly all accused including applicant have succeeded in not allowing trial to be commenced. It is pointed out that on number of occasions the counsel for the applicant remained absent before the Trial Court and hence delay is attributable to the applicant too.

8. This submission is opposed by the counsel for the Applicant pointing out that in fact the made an application in the year 2022 for framing of the charge which shows that he never intended to delay the trial. Apart from this it is submitted that the number of dates of heari