Right To Speedy Trial Can’t Be Whittled Down Merely Because Case Arises Under MCOCA: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Accused

The Application before the High Court was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking the grant of regular bail in the proceedings arising from an FIR registered under Sections 3(1)/3(4)/3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “The right to a speedy trial, now firmly entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not an abstract or illusory safeguard. It is a vital facet of the right to personal liberty and cannot be whittled down merely because the case arises under a special statute such as MCOCA.”

Advocate Tarun Gahlot represented the Applicant while APP Mukesh Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case was registered against one Manoj Morkheri and his associates, part of a structured and well-organised criminal syndicate, operating primarily in Delhi NCR and adjoining states. The syndicate was allegedly involved in a series of grave offences, including murder, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, robbery, and attempted murder, which were committed through acts of violence, intimidation, and other unlawful means. These offences were carried out to derive pecuniary benefit and secure undue economic advantage. The gang’s sustained criminal activities had instilled fear in the region.

The impugned FIR was registered following a proposal for approval to invoke the provisions of MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) in light of the consistent and continuing criminal activities of the syndicate. The Applicant, an active gang member of the Manoj Morkheri syndicate, was accused of playing a direct role in multiple offences, including those involving murder, attempted murder, kidnapping for ransom, and robbery, across different jurisdictions. His arrest in the present case led to his being committed to trial before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge.

The applicant had been named and arrested along with co-accused Manoj Morkheri in a case under Sections 364A/120B/34 IPC, and another case under Sections 387/365/364A IPC. Further, after arrest in the impugned FIR under MCOCA, during judicial custody, the Applicant had been involved in another FIR under Sections 387/34 IPC in which he has been charge-sheeted.

Reasoning

Highlighting the right to speedy trial, the Bench held, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that where trials under special laws are 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. In other words, where enactments stipulate strict conditions for granting bail, it is the unequivocal responsibility of the State to ensure that such trials are prioritized and concluded within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, although Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, these provisions must be balanced with the fundamental right to personal liberty of the accused, the presumption of innocence, and the societal interest in ensuring the right to a speedy trial”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that while Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent statutory conditions for the grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC, these provisions cannot be construed in a manner that forecloses judicial scrutiny under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the Applicant has already been in custody for nearly 9 years, and despite the prolonged detention, the trial remains far from its conclusion. “Accordingly, this case falls squarely within the purview of Article 21, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial”, the Bench stated.

The status report filed by the State indicated that out of 60 prosecution witnesses, only 35 had been examined so far. As per the Bench, the inordinate delay and excessive period of detention violated the Applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 21. On a review of the Applicant’s criminal record, the Bench noted that he had either been acquitted or was currently on bail in the majority of the cases registered against him. It was further noticed that the only case considered by the authorities at the time of granting sanction under MCOCA was an FIR in which the Applicant had already been acquitted before the registration of the present FIR under MCOCA.

The State had drawn attention to the fact that the Applicant was implicated in an FIR registered during the period he was in judicial custody following his arrest in the present matter. The said FIR arose out of an altercation that occurred within the confines and secure precincts of the jail premises. The incident was not related to any external criminal activity, but was instead a custodial episode involving other inmates or jail personnel. The Applicant had already been granted bail in connection with this FIR.

“As such, the only basis for invoking MCOCA against the Applicant appears to be his alleged involvement in FIR No. 47/2011, and the alleged criminal activities of Manoj Morkheri and his associates, who are purportedly part of a larger crime syndicate. This, at the very least, prima facie casts a serious doubt in favour of the Applicant”, the Bench said while also adding, “In comparison, the Applicant’s sentence in both cases of conviction has been suspended, and his appeals remain pending. Therefore, considering the principle of parity and the more favourable circumstances of the Applicant, he is similarly entitled to the benefit of bail.”

Thus, the Bench directed that the Applicant shall be released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000.

Cause Title: Jitender Dixit @ Bantu v. The State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4038)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Tarun Gahlot

Respondent: APP Mukesh Kumar, ACP Narender Singh, SI Sachin

Click here to read/download Order