Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the applicant (‘accused’) for seeking regular bail in FIR registered for the offences under Sections 3/4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’), Amit Mahajan, J.*, stated that various courts have recognized that prolonged incarceration undermines the right to life and liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, conditional liberty must take precedence over the statutory restrictions under Section 21 of MCOCA and override the bar therein.
Thus, the Court directed the accused to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, on certain conditions.
Background
On 23-7-2017, based on secret information, a raid was conducted, and the accused was apprehended with 3 kg of heroin, which led to the registration of FIR. At the time of apprehension, the accused was travelling in a car that was registered in the name of co-accused, who was allegedly a notorious criminal with involvements of 20 cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The accused stated that he was innocent and MCOCA was erroneously invoked against him. He submitted that the accused was merely employed as a driver of the co-accused and he had no knowledge of the contraband recovered from the vehicle, which led to the registration of FIR. It was further submitted that the accused had spent about six and a half years in custody and only 11 out of 100 witnesses were examined till now. He submitted that the trial was likely going to take long time to conclude and no purpose would be served by subjecting the accused to undergo further incarceration.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that it was the prosecution’s case that the accused persons including the accused, who are members of a syndicate, acted in an organised manner and committed illegal activities, particularly drug trafficking, for pecuniary gain and accumulated huge wealth. In the present case, the accused had sought bail essentially on the grounds of delay in trial and his period of incarceration.
The Court noted that the accused had spent more than six years in custody, despite which, the matter was still at the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses and only 11 out of 100 witnesses were examined till now. Speedy trial in such a case does not seem to be a possibility and the trial is likely going to take a long time to conclude.
The Court stated that it was evident that despite the stringent requirements imposed on the accused under Section 21 of MCOCA for the grant of bail, it was established that these requirements did not preclude the grant of bail on the grounds of undue delay in the completion of the trial. The Court stated that various courts have recognized that prolonged incarceration undermines the right to life and liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, conditional liberty must take precedence over the statutory restrictions under Section 21 of MCOCA and override the bar therein.
The Court noted that undisputedly, the activities of the alleged syndicate did not lead to death and therefore, the minimum sentence for the alleged offences would be only five years. Since, any comment on the potential sentence that might be awarded in the present case would be premature, at this stage, the Court stated that the accused had spent more time in custody more than five years and that the trial was unlikely to be concluded soon. Further, the nominal roll also reflected that the conduct of the accused was satisfactory, and he had not misused the liberty when he was enlarged on interim bail on a previous occasion.
Thus, the Court directed the accused to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, on certain conditions. The Court stated that the accused should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner and the accused should under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court. Further, the Court directed the accused to provide his address, mobile number, and stated that he should report to IO concerned every Monday at 4 pm.
[Rajesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 2986 of 2023, decided on 8-5-2025]
*Order by Justice Amit Mahajan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Akshay Bhandari, Anmol Sachdeva, Kushal Kumar, Meghna Saroa and Janak Raj Ambawat, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Akhand Pratap Singh, SC with Samridhi Dobhal, Krishna Mohan Chandel and Hrithik Maurya, Advocates, Inspector Rakesh Kumar, PS- Special Cell
Buy Constitution of India HERE
