Recently, the Delhi High Court, granted bail under Section 21(4) of MCOCA after noting that the applicant had endured over six years of pre-trial detention while only 11 of 100 witnesses were examined, a delay infringing his Article 21 right to a speedy trial; relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, the court held that even the stringent statutory bail bar must give way when prolonged incarceration makes timely justice unattainable.
On July 23, 2017, during a secret-tip raid, police seized 3 kg of heroin from the applicant, leading to an FIR by the Special Cell. The applicant was driving a car registered to the co-accused, a known NDPS offender. In custody, the applicant admitted supplying heroin to Deepak and Neeraj,and subsequent arrests of Babu and others recovered more heroin. The State alleges they formed an organised, profit-driven drug syndicate. The applicant also faces an earlier FIR for offences under IPC 307/34 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, which led to the filing of the present bail application on the grounds of undue delay and over six years of pre-trial detention, with only 11 of 100 witnesses examined.
The applicant’s counsel contended that MCOCA was wrongly invoked, as the applicant was only the co-accused’s driver and unaware of the heroin in the vehicle. He noted the applicant had already secured bail in the related NDPS case and was acquitted in the FIR, which is unrelated. Emphasising over six years of custody with just 11 of 100 witnesses examined, the defense argued that further detention served no purpose given the trial’s protracted nature.
On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail, arguing that the allegations against the applicant were serious. The respondent contended that the applicant was part of a larger organised crime syndicate engaged in drug trafficking for financial gain. The prosecutor further stated that the applicant's previous acquittal in the case under the Arms Act had no bearing on the invocation of MCOCA. It was also emphasised that the trial, while delayed, should not lead to an early release on bail but rather be expedited.
The Court highlighted the relevant factors that need to be considered while granting bail, which include the seriousness of the accusation, the likelihood of the applicant committing further offences while on bail, the gravity of the charges, and the period of incarceration.
The Court emphasised that while the conditions under MCOCA are stringent, prolonged incarceration due to delays in trial could undermine the applicant's fundamental right to life and liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court referred to the precedent in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, where the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of a timely trial in ensuring justice.
The Court also noted that the applicant was not the kingpin of the syndicate, and no fatal outcomes had occurred as a result of the alleged offences. Furthermore, the applicant had been granted bail in a related NDPS case and had been acquitted in another.
The Court further referred to cases such as Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha and Arun v. State of NCT of Delhi, which affirmed that prolonged incarceration could necessitate the grant of bail, even under special statutes like MCOCA. It was observed that in light of the delay in the trial, the applicant had made a prima facie case for bail.
Taking into consideration the prolonged period of incarceration, the delay in the trial, and the fact that the applicant was not a key figure in the alleged syndicate, the Court granted bail to the applicant, on the condition that the applicant furnishes a personal bond of ₹50,000/- along with two sureties of the same amount. Additionally, the applicant was directed not to tamper with evidence or influence any witnesses, and was prohibited from leaving the country without the Court's permission. The applicant was also required to report to the investigating officer every Monday at 4 PM.
The Court clarified that the observations made in the order were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial.
In conclusion, the bail was granted, with the Court emphasising the importance of timely trials and the constitutional right to a speedy trial, especially in cases of prolonged incarceration.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Alias Raje Vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Case No: Bail Appln. 2986/2023
Coram: Justice Amit Mahajan
Counsel of Applicant: Adv. Akshay Bhandari, Adv. Anmol Sachdeva, Adv. Kushal Kumar, Adv. Meghna Saroa & Adv. Janak Raj Ambawat
Counsel of Respondent: Adv. Akhand Pratap Singh, SC, Adv. Samridhi Dobhal, Adv. Krishna Mohan Chandel & Adv. Hrithik Maurya,
Read Order @ LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
Ruchi Sharma
