The right to a speedy trial must be balanced against the gravity of the offence and potential risks to public safety, even in cases of prolonged judicial custody.

1. Second Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the Applicant Umesh @ Kala for grant of Regular Bail on case FIR No.77/2018 under Section 3/4 Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “MCOCA”), Police Station Special Cell, Delhi.

2. It is submitted that the Applicant is a family person, having his wife and old and ailing parents. He is in Judicial custody for last 6 years, 7 months and 12 days since 24.08.2018. He has been implicated falsely in this case as there is no evidence to show that he was involved in organized crime, as alleged by the Prosecution.

3. He has been implicated falsely in FIR No.83/2018 under Section 302/307/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Police Station Maurya Enclave which was registered on 16.03.2018. On the basis of the said FIR, the provisions of MCOCA have been wrongly invoked for registration of present FIR by wrongly portraying that the Applicant is a member of organized crime. He has already been granted Regular Bail in the said FIR No. 83/2018. While granting Bail, the Ld. Court had observed that out of 61 witnesses, only 19 witnesses had been examined. The trial is likely to take long to get concluded.

4. The Applicant had been granted Interim Bail by this Court and the Ld. Trial Court vide Order dated 19.06.2024, 21.11.2024 and 10.11.2024 respectively on the ground of medical condition of wife of the Applicant. He complied with the conditions imposed and surrendered before the concerned Jail Authority on time. There was no misuse of liberty of the Interim Orders granted to him.

5. The Applicant’s father Vijender Kumar had been diagnosed with severe heart condition and has been advised by the Doctors at AIIMS to undergo urgent bypass heart surgery. The Doctor’s recommendation highlights the immediate surgical intervention necessary to prevent life threatening situation. The Applicant being the only son, is the sole caretaker who can look after his father during and after the surgery. He has a history of stent placement in the Left Anterior Descending Artery on 28.09.2013 and Left Circumflex artery, on 14.10.2013. He has also undergone Coronary Angioplasty in 2019. Presently, he is experiencing Angina pain on Exertion Grade II for the past four months with significant 60% ejection fraction since 2013. Given his deteriorating condition, Doctors at AIIMS have advised him continuous medical attention and further bypass surgery.

6. The reference is made to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra , (2024) 9 SCC 813 , where while granting Bail, it was observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

7. It is submitted that after a period of more than 6 years, Charges have been framed on 24.08.2024. There are 88 Prosecution witnesses and the examination of all the witnesses shall take long. He has already undergone more than 6½ years of custody and denying him Bail, is violative of his