Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 1017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.12939 of 2024)
SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODE
…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.12.19
18:04:39 IST
Reason:
1
3. 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.
4. 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.
2
5. 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
1
and Another . She therefore submits that no interference is
warranted in the present appeal.
6. 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.
7. 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
2
State of Maharashtra v. Vishwnath Maranna Shetty .
1
(2024) 9 SCC 813 : 2024 INSC 645
2 (2012) 10 SCC 561 : 2012 INSC 494
3
8. 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.
9. However, it is to be noted that this Court in the case of
3
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement , 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.
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 : 2024 INSC 595
4
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
4
v. Directorate of Enforcement
.
10. 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.
4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269 : 2024 INSC 632
5
11. 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.
12. In order to protect the interest of the prosecution as well
as the victim, we are inclined to impose certain stringent
conditions on the appellant.
13. 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.
6
14. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
7
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
..............................J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 18, 2024 .
8