Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Danish Ali Jamaluddin Ahmed, was arrested on 1 December 2018 in connection with FIR No. 326 of 2018 (later renumbered as FIR No. 36 of 2018 of DCB CID) for offences under Sections 387 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 25 read with 37(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The case, registered as MCOC Special Case No. 2 of 2019, involved serious allegations of transnational crime. The applicant, accused no. 3, applied for pardon under Section 307 read with Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was granted by the Special Court on 18 February 2020. His statement was recorded under Section 9(3) of MCOCA read with Sections 307 and 306 CrPC. After charges were framed, the applicant filed a bail application before the High Court, arguing that he had been in custody for over 5 years, had fully cooperated as an approver, and that the trial was not likely to conclude soon. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the need to ensure the applicant's safety and availability. The court, after hearing the parties and the amicus curiae, held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount. It noted that the applicant had already been granted pardon and his statement recorded, and that his continued detention was not necessary as his cooperation could be secured through conditions. The court granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including surrendering his passport, reporting to the investigating officer, and not tampering with evidence. The court also directed the Special Court to expedite the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail to Approver - Sections 306, 307 CrPC, 1973 - The applicant, an approver who was granted pardon, sought bail after being in custody for over 5 years. The court held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount and that continued detention of an approver, who has already cooperated, is not justified if trial is not likely to conclude soon. Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1-35) B) Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act - Bail - Section 9(3) MCOC Act, 1999 - The court considered the stringent provisions of MCOCA but noted that the applicant had already been granted pardon and his statement recorded under Section 9(3). The court held that the purpose of keeping an approver in custody is to ensure his availability and cooperation, which can be secured through conditions. (Paras 10-20) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court emphasized that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right and that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trial violates this right. The court directed the Special Court to expedite the trial. (Paras 25-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, who has been granted pardon and is an approver, is entitled to bail pending trial in a MCOCA case, considering the long period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of trial concluding soon.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the bail application and granted bail to the applicant subject to stringent conditions, including surrendering his passport, reporting to the investigating officer, and not tampering with evidence. The court also directed the Special Court to expedite the trial.
Law Points
- Bail
- Approver
- Pardon
- MCOCA
- Section 307 CrPC
- Section 306 CrPC
- Section 9(3) MCOC Act
- Long Incarceration
- Right to Speedy Trial
