'Ensure Trials Aren't Delayed Due To Non-Production Of Accused' : Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Govt & Bombay HC
Yash Mittal
20 Dec 2024 5:35 PM IST
The Court passed this general direction after expressing shock that an accused was not produced in court for nearly six years.
The Supreme Court granted bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial due to the State's failure to produce the accused on most dates out of 102 dates in the last six years.
Noting that this was not a solitary case and was happening in many cases, the Court issued a general direction.
The Court directed “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.”
Taking note of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement's decision, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that it would be a travesty of justice if the accused is being forced to remain in jail without getting the trial started, as 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 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.”, the court said.
Observing that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an Accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that the stringent provisions of draconian statutes like MCOCA should not hinder the granting of bail when there is a significant delay in the trial.
In order to protect the interest of the prosecution as well as the victim, the Court imposed certain stringent conditions on the appellant.
“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.”, the court directed.
Earlier also, in another case, the Court had called for an affidavit from the Maharashtra Home Secretary on why video-conferencing facilities were not being used to produce accused.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mr. Sandip Magar, Adv. Mr. Kalyan Landge, Adv. Mrs. Sangeeta S Pahune Patil, Adv. Ms. Revati P. Kharde, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Preetraj R. Dhok, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv.
Case Title: SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1026
