Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Prolonged Incarceration Undermines Right To Life & Liberty; Conditional Liberty Must Override MCOCA Bail Bar: Delhi High Court
|Accused was arrested in 2018 for allegedly transporting 3 kg heroin while driving a co-accused's car, facing charges under MCOCA.
The Delhi High Court has held that conditional liberty must take precedence over the statutory limitations on bail as laid out under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999, particularly in instances where there is an undue delay in the completion of the trial.
The ruling came in the context of a bail application where applicant had been arrested in connection with a 2018 FIR registered by the Special Cell. He was charged under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA for allegedly being part of an organized crime syndicate. During a police raid, he was found in possession of 3 kilograms of heroin, while driving a car registered in the name of a co-accused known for multiple offences under the NDPS Act. The prosecution claimed that he had disclosed the names of his associates, leading to further arrests and seizures.
A Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan said, “Various courts have recognized that prolonged incarceration undermines the right to life and liberty, as has been guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, conditional liberty must take precedence over the statutory restrictions under Section 21 of MCOCA and override the bar therein.”
The Court observed that although over six years had passed since his arrest, the trial remained stalled at the stage of examining prosecution witnesses, with only 11 out of 100 witnesses having been examined. The Court noted that given the pace of the trial, its conclusion in the near future seemed unlikely.
The Court also pointed out that the alleged syndicate’s activities had not resulted in any loss of life, and therefore, the minimum sentence prescribed for the offences under MCOCA in this case would be five years. The Court found it disproportionate that he had already been incarcerated for more than the minimum term, while the trial continued to languish.
The Court also took into account his previous conduct, noting that he had already been granted bail in the NDPS case and had been acquitted in a separate criminal case.
In light of these considerations, and without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that a prima facie case had been established for granting bail. The delay in trial, coupled with the prolonged incarceration, weighed heavily in favor of the accused’s release.
The Court further clarified that the observations made in this bail order were solely for adjudicating the current application and should not be construed as having any bearing on the merits of the trial or the ultimate determination of guilt.
Cause Title: Rajesh Kumar Alias Raje v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Akshay Bhandari, Anmol Sachdeva, Kushal Kumar, Meghna Saroa & Janak Raj Ambawat
Respondent: Advocates Akhand Pratap Singh, Samridhi Dobhal, Krishna Mohan Chandel & Hrithik Maurya