Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Criminal Probe Can't Continue Against Unknowns Sans Prima Facie Offence: Bombay HC Quashes CBI FIR
06 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadikari Bids Empathetic Farewell to Kerala High Court
06 Mar 2026
Compensation U/S 28A LA Act Not Restricted to Foundational Award: Bombay High Court
06 Mar 2026
Karnataka HC Issues Notice on Sri Lankan Judge's Right to be Forgotten Plea for Removing Alleged Defamatory Online Content
06 Mar 2026
Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
06 Mar 2026
Shrivastava Highlights Bench-Bar Partnership in Farewell Speech
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Directs Urgent Monsoon Prep for Flood-Prone Kochi
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Umesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Vijender Singh – Appellant
Versus
State, Through SHO P.S. Special Cell Lodhi Road – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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
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.
Prolonged detention without trial must be balanced against stringent bail conditions, recognizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
The court ruled that the applicant's involvement in organized crime and conspiracy to commit murder, supported by substantial evidence, justified the rejection of bail under the MCOC Act.
[The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial can warrant the granting of bail, especially when the prosecution has not estab....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to strictly construe the provisions of MCOCA, establish the mens rea, and consider the length of the period spent in custody and the unlik....
The main legal point established is the court's discretion to grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the MCOC Act, based on the constitutional right to a speedy trial and the lack of direct ....
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted lightly in serious cases, particularly where the accused has a significant criminal history and the allegations are grave.
The court ruled that the applicant's extensive criminal history and ongoing risks justified the denial of bail under the U.P. Gangster Act, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds for bail.
The court emphasized that bail under the U.P. Gangsters Act requires reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, which the applicant failed to establish.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article