Prolonged incarceration justifies bail in MCOCA offenses despite statutory restrictions where trial completion is unlikely.

The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 208/2021 involving a high-profile extortion racket where co-accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar allegedly extorted ₹217 crores from a complainant by impersonating government officials.

The petitioner, a car dealer, was accused of assisting the main accused and his wife (Leena Paulose) in laundering extorted funds by purchasing luxury cars and real estate through sham transactions and receiving commissions.

The petitioner was arrested on 05.09.2021.

His first bail application was dismissed on 11.07.2023.

Charges were framed on 03.06.2026, but the trial involved 24 accused persons and 403 witnesses.

Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), which imposes a "dual condition" for bail: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences.

Article 21 of the Constitution regarding the right to a speedy trial, relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Gulfisha Fatima v. State (GNCTD) to hold that statutory restrictions cannot preclude constitutional claims arising from prolonged incarceration.

Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra regarding the interpretation of statutory bail bars.

The court engaged in a "surface evaluation" of the allegations to balance the severity of the charges with the petitioner's nearly five-year detention.

It noted that the petitioner was not involved in the foundational crime of extortion but rather in the post-facto management of funds—specifically purchasing property and cars.

Given that the Petitioner had already spent approximately 4 years and 10 months in custody, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon due to the volume of witnesses (403) and accused (24), the court determined that the petitioner’s Article 21 rights outweighed the MCOCA restrictions.

The court distinguished the petitioner's role from that of the masterminds, noting his role was comparable to co-accused already granted bail.

The petitioner was ordered to be released on a personal bond of ₹2,50,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including surrendering his passport, not leaving the country without permission, and appearing for all trial dates.

The court clarified that these findings were only for the purpose of bail and not an opinion on the merits of the trial.