Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the applicant (‘accused’) under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking regular bail in the FIR registered for offence under Sections 3(1)/3(4)/3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’), Sanjeev Narula, J.*, as of today, the accused had been in custody for nearly nine years, and despite the prolonged detention, the trial remained far from its conclusion. Further, the status report filed by the State indicated that out of 60 prosecution witnesses, only 35 were examined so far. Thus, the Court stated that the inordinate delay and excessive period of detention violate the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution.
Thus, the Court directed the accused to be released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.
Background
In the present case, it was alleged that the accused person was an active gang member of a criminal syndicate and was accused of playing a direct role in multiple offences, including those involving murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping for ransom, and robbery, across different jurisdictions.
The arrest of the accused in the present case led to his being committed to trial before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, where the matter is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence. It was alleged that the accused had a criminal history and was named and arrested with the co-accused in another FIR registered under Sections 387/365/364-A of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Further, after the arrest of the accused in the impugned FIR under MCOCA, during judicial custody, he was involved in the FIR under Sections 387/34 of IPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the principal thrust of the accused’s plea laid in the prolonged period of incarceration and the undue delay in the conclusion of trial; and the principle of parity with co-accused who was already granted bail.
The Court stated that the right to a speedy trial, now firmly entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence under Article 21 of the Constitution, was not an abstract or illusory safeguard. It was a vital facet of the right to personal liberty and could not be whittled down merely because the case arose under a special statute such as MCOCA.
The Court stated that the Supreme Court had consistently held that where trials under special laws were unduly delayed, the rigour of stringent bail provisions must yield to the constitutional promise of liberty. The more rigorous the provisions of the legislation, the more expeditious the adjudication must be. Therefore, the Court stated that although, Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposed stringent conditions for grant of bail, these provisions must be balanced with fundamental right to personal liberty of the accused, the presumption of innocence, and the societal interest in ensuring the right to a speedy trial.
The Court opined that while Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposed stringent statutory conditions for grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC, these provisions could not be construed in a manner that foreclosed judicial scrutiny under Article 21 of Constitution. Where there was a manifest and continuing violation of the right to a speedy trial, constitutional courts were not only empowered but duty-bound to intervene.
The Court stated that as of today, the accused had been in custody for nearly nine years, and despite the prolonged detention, the trial remained far from its conclusion. Further, the status report filed by the State indicated that out of 60 prosecution witnesses, only 35 were examined so far. Thus, the Court stated that the inordinate delay and excessive period of detention violate the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution, and thus, the accused’s plea for bail had merits.
Further, after comprehensive consideration of the submissions, the Court observed that the accused was either acquitted or was granted bail or suspension of sentence in all the cases referred to by the State. Consequently, the pendency of the present matter stood as the sole impediment preventing the accused from availing the benefit of liberty conferred upon him by various judicial orders of competent courts. The continued deprivation of liberty, despite such favourable orders, assumes particular significance in view of the protracted progress of the trial in the present case. The delay, therefore, not only prolongs the accused’s pre-trial detention, but also rendered nugatory the reliefs granted to him in other matters. Such an outcome defeats the ends of justice and could not be permitted to persist indefinitely.
Thus, the Court directed the accused to be released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.
[Jitender Dixit v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 3831 of 2023, decided on 19-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sanjeev Narula
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Tarun Gahlot, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with ACP Narender Singh, PS ACP/ NR-II, Crime Branch and SI Sachin, PS NR-II, Crime Branch.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
