Summary
The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 who had been in custody for about five years without charges being framed, holding that such prolonged incarceration amounts to punishment without trial despite the Act's twin conditions for bail. It also directed the Bombay High Court and the State to devise a mechanism to ensure production of undertrials before trial courts.
Issues
- Whether an accused under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 who has been in custody for about five years without framing of charges is entitled to bail notwithstanding the twin conditions for bail under that Act.
- What steps should be taken to prevent trials being prolonged because accused persons are not produced before the trial court.
Provisions considered
- Twin conditions for bail (reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty; unlikely to offend on bail), Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999The High Court had refused bail on the twin conditions, relying on State of Maharashtra v. Vishwnath Maranna Shetty. The Supreme Court found no error in that reasoning as such, but held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without framing of charges justified bail despite the conditions. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- Articles 19 and 21, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court treated the right to a speedy trial as a facet of Articles 19 and 21, and held that prolonged custody without trial forces the accused to undergo sentence without trial. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Held
- The principle in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, decided under the twin conditions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to punishment without trial and that speedy trial is a facet of Articles 19 and 21, applies equally to bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Where the accused had been in custody for about five years, had not been produced before the court physically or virtually on most dates, and charges had not even been framed, keeping him in custody would amount to imposing sentence without trial; such delay is also contrary to the interests of the victim. Bail was granted on stringent conditions. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Because non-production of undertrials was prolonging trials in many cases, the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court and the Home and Law and Justice Secretaries of Maharashtra were directed to jointly evolve a mechanism ensuring that accused persons are produced, physically or virtually, on every date of hearing. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; orders of the Special Court dated 02.02.2024 and of the High Court dated 29.07.2024 set aside; appellant released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties, with conditions not to enter Akluj Tehsil during trial, to report his residence and to attend every hearing; directions issued for a production mechanism.