Right to speedy trial can't be whittled down in MCOCA case: Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an alleged gang member of a crime syndicate and said the right to a speedy trial, a vital facet of personal liberty, couldn't be "whittled down" even in the stringent MCOCA cases.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed accused Arun was in custody in the present FIR under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for over eight years.

The trial, the court said, was "far from its conclusion" with his continued incarceration also being an impediment in his release on parole for four weeks in another case.

"The right to a speedy trial, now firmly entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not an abstract or illusory safeguard. It is a vital facet of the right to personal liberty and cannot be whittled down merely because the case arises under a special statute such as MCOCA," the court said on April 7.

The bail order added, "This case falls squarely within the purview of constitutional scrutiny under Article 21, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial." The state's status report indicated to the court that of the 60 prosecution witnesses, only 35 were examined so far.

"The inordinate delay and excessive period of detention violate applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 21," it added.

Arun was arrested in June 2016 for allegedly being an active member of the Manoj Morkheri gang, a structured and well-organised criminal syndicate operating primarily in Delhi-NCR and adjoining states.

The syndicate was allegedly to be involved in a series of grave offences, including murder, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, robbery, and attempt to murder.

The Delhi Police counsel opposed the accused's plea for regular bail on the ground that he was a "hardcore criminal" and if released on bail he would continue to commit offences, pose threats to witnesses, and interfere with the course of justice.

The court, however, said the Supreme Court has said when trials under special laws were unduly delayed, the rigour of stringent bail provisions must yield to the constitutional promise of liberty.

Therefore, though Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposed stringent conditions for the grant of bail, it must be balanced with the fundamental right to personal liberty of the accused, the presumption of innocence, and the societal interest in ensuring the right to a speedy trial, it added.

Where there was a manifest and continuing violation of the right to a speedy trial, the court said, constitutional courts were not only empowered but duty-bound to intervene.

It also had "serious doubts" on the material placed to implicate him in the present case.

The court observed the Punjab and Haryana High Court had five years ago granted him parole for four weeks in another case in which he is serving life term.

Denial of liberty despite a favourable judicial order could not be overlooked, especially when the trial in the present case was proceeding at a slow pace, it added.

"Thus, the pendency of this case has become the only impediment to the applicant availing the limited liberty granted by a constitutional court, which facilitates prisoners’ rehabilitation and reintegration into the society, and enables them to reestablish social ties with their family members.. Such an outcome defeats the ends of justice and cannot be permitted to persist indefinitely," the court said.

The accused was granted regular bail on a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50,000 along with one surety of the like amount subject to conditions.