Evolve Mechanism To Ensure That Accused Are Produced Before Trial Judge On Every Date & Trial Is Not Prolonged: SC Directs Bombay HC Registrar, Home Secretary & Law Dept.
The Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court, Secretary, Home, State of Maharashtra and Secretary, Law and Justice, 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 accused persons.
The Apex Court was considering a bail matter pertaining to a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 where the accused was incarcerated for a period of approximately 5 years without even framing of charges.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan expressed anguish and said, “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.”
AOR Anand Dilip Landge represented the Appellant while Advocate Varad Kilor represented the Respondent.
The Appellant’s Counsel brought it to the Court’s notice that relying solely on one criminal antecedent, the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) had been invoked against the appellant herein. Relying on certain photographs, it was submitted 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.It was further submitted 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. On such grounds, it was pleaded that the appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail.
On the contrary, it was the case of the Respondents that the appellant is a part of a gang which has caused terror in the area and is indulging in criminal activities and no interference was warranted in the present appeal.
The Bench, at the outset, observed, “...we may state that the learned Single Judge by an elaborate and well reasoned order rejected the appeal of the appellant herein.”
It was noticed that the Single Judge 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 he/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. While doing so, the Judge had also given elaborate reasonings and held that the appellant was not entitled to grant of bail.
The Apex Court referred to its judgment in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), where while considering the twin conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 it was 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.
The Bench noted that the material placed on record revealed that for a period of the last six years, out of 102 dates, the accused wasn’t produced before the Court either physically or through virtual mode on most of the dates. The Bench also noted that the charges were not framed as of date.
“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”, the Bench said.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the orders of the Special Court and the Single Judge. The Court directed the accused to be released on bail by imposing stringent conditions.
Considering that there are many such cases where the trial is being prolonged on the ground that the appellant is not produced before the Trial Judge either physically or virtually, the Bench ordered, “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.”
Cause Title: Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode v. The State of Maharashtra And Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1017)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Anand Dilip Landge,Advocates Sandip Magar, Kalyan Landge, Sangeeta S Pahune Patil, Revati P. Kharde, Sumit Kumar
Respondents: AOR Varad Kilor, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Sourav Singh, AOR Anagha S. Desai, Advocates Satyajit A. Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Sachin Singh, Preetraj R. Dhok, Ananya Thapliyal
