It is definitely in the paramount interest of justice, fair trial and humanity that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode vs The State of Maharashtra and Another in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.12939 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 1017 and so also in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1026 that was pronounced as recently as on 18.12.2024 granted bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial due to the failure of the State of Maharashtra to produce the accused on most dates out of 102 dates in the last six years. While noting that this was not a solitary case and was happening in many cases, the top court issued a general direction. It must also be noted that the Apex Court passed this general direction after expressing its utter shock that an accused was not produced in court for nearly six years.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Leave granted.”
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 2 of this robust judgment that, “The present appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2024, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant herein challenging the order passed by the Additional Special Judge (M.C.O.C. Act), Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Judge’), rejecting the application for bail filed by the appellant.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 of this commendable judgment mentioning that, “Shri Anand Dilip Landge, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the learned Special Judge have grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. It is submitted that relying solely on one criminal antecedent, the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the said Act’) have been invoked against the appellant herein. Relying on certain photographs, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not present at the place of the incident, inasmuch as he was 26 kms., away from the place where the incident occurred. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that when the appellant was arrested, he was 21 years of age and after approximately five years of incarceration, he is now 26 years of age. He, therefore, submits that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.”
On the other hand, the Bench then discloses in para 4 of this concise judgment that, “The appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. Varad Kilor, learned counsel appearing for the State and Smt. Anagha S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 of this forthright judgment that, “It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as for the complainant that the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by an elaborate order, rejected the appeal of the appellant herein. It is submitted that the appellant is a part of a gang which has caused terror in the area and is indulging in criminal activities. Smt. Anagha S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the reliance sought to be placed by the appellant on the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024) 9 SCC 813 : 2024 INSC 645. She therefore submits that no interference is warranted in the present appeal.”
Simply put, the Bench states in para 6 of this remarkable judgment that, “At the outset, we may state that the learned Single Judge by an elaborate and well reasoned order rejected the appeal of the appellant herein.”
As things stands, the Bench opines in para 7 that, “We, therefore, find no error in the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vishwnath Maranna Shetty (2012) 10 SCC 561 : 2012 INSC 494.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 8 of this noteworthy judgment that, “A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would reveal that the learned Judge has basically rejected the appeal on the ground that the twin conditions as required under the provisions of the said Act i.e. (i) Satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) He/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. While doing so, the learned Judge has given elaborate reasonings and has held that the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail.”
Most rationally, the Bench while citing a recent and relevant case law propounds in para 9 of this refreshing judgment stating that, “However, it is to be noted that this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 : 2024 INSC 595, while considering the twin conditions, as applicable under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has held that prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence without undergoing the trial. In the said case of Manish Sisodia (supra), the Court has also held that the right to speedy trial is also one of the facets of the rights flowing from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), has been constantly followed in various other judgments including the case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269 : 2024 INSC 632.”
Most significantly, most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, the Bench minces absolutely just no words to encapsulates in para 10 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “The material placed on record would reveal that for a period of the last six years, out of 102 dates, the accused has not been produced before the Court either physically or through virtual mode on most of the dates. On the last date, we had put a query to the learned counsel appearing for the State as to why the charges were not framed as of date in this case. Shri Kilor fairly states that the charges have not been framed in the cases which are registered prior to the registration of the present case. We may say with anguish that this is a very sorry state of affairs. If an accused is incarcerated for a period of approximately five years without even framing of charges, leave aside the right of speedy trial being affected, it would amount to imposing sentence without trial. In our view, such a prolonged delay is also not in the interest of the rights of the victim.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 11 of this recent judgment directing that, “We are, therefore, inclined to allow the appeal. The order passed by the Special Court dated 02.02.2024 and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.07.2024 are quashed and set aside.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then while directing the release of appellant on bail stipulates in para 13 of this notable judgment observing that, “The appellant is directed to be released on bail on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall execute a bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The appellant shall not enter the area of Akluj Tehsil during the trial.
(iii) The appellant shall intimate his place of residence to the Trial Court as well as to the Police Station within whose jurisdiction he would reside.
(iv) The appellant shall continue to appear before the learned Special Judge on every date regularly.”
Needless to say, the Bench directs in para 14 of this rational judgment stating that, “The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 15 of this progressive judgment that, “It is pertinent to mention that during the hearing of the present appeal, as already discussed above, a sorry state of affairs is being depicted. The trial is being prolonged on the ground that the appellant is not produced before the Trial Judge either physically or virtually. We are informed that this is not a solitary case but in many cases such a difficulty arises.”
Most commendably, the Bench deems fit to hold in para 16 of this pragmatic judgment directing that, “We, therefore, direct the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Secretary, Home, State of Maharashtra and Secretary, Law and Justice, State of Maharashtra to sit together and evolve a mechanism to ensure that the accused are produced before the Trial Judge either physically or virtually on every date and the trial is not permitted to be prolonged on the ground of non-production of the accused persons.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 17 of this pertinent judgment directing that, “A copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Secretary, Home, State of Maharashtra and Secretary, Law and Justice, State of Maharashtra forthwith for necessary action.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes aptly by holding in para 18 of this most persuasive judgment that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
All said and done, we thus see that the Apex Court while most sanguinely upholding the sacrosanct legal rights of the accused to get speedy trial from the courts very rightly, rationally and robustly holds and directs in no uncertain terms that ensure trials aren’t delayed due to the non-production of the accused. It is certainly the bounden duty of the Maharashtra State Government and so also the Bombay High Court to ostensibly pay heed firmly to what has been held so very explicitly, elegantly, eloquently and effectively in this leading case by the Apex Court and in pursuance thereof act accordingly in this direction at the earliest so that the trial of the accused is not delayed due to the non-production of the accused. There can certainly be just no denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
