Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in MCOCA Case Due to Parity with Co-Accused and Delay in Trial. Applicant, in custody since 2008, granted bail as trial not commenced and case similar to co-accused who was already bailed.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 63
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Afroz Firoz Mujawar @ Dastagir, was accused No. 19 in MCOC Act Special Case No. 4 of 2009 pending before the Special Court under the MCOC Act at Mumbai. There were 23 accused in the case. The applicant had been in custody since 4 October 2008. The trial had not commenced and even the charge had not been framed. The applicant sought bail on the ground that his case was on par with that of accused No. 9, Mohd. Atik Mohd. Iqbal, who had been released on bail by the same court in Criminal Bail Application No. 1047 of 2011 decided on 24 September 2012. The prosecution case related to a series of bomb blasts in Ahmedabad on 26 July 2008, allegedly carried out by the Indian Mujahideen, and the investigation by the Mumbai Crime Branch led to the arrest of the 23 accused for offences including waging war against the State, unlawful activities, and possession of explosives. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the facts and reasoning in the order granting bail to accused No. 9 squarely applied to the present applicant. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody for over four years without the trial commencing, which infringed upon his right to a speedy trial. Accordingly, the court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant's release on bail subject to conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties, and reporting to the investigating officer periodically.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail - Parity - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) - Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) - Applicant sought bail on ground of parity with co-accused No. 9 who was granted bail by this Court - Court held that since the case of the applicant was almost on par with the co-accused and the trial had not commenced despite the applicant being in custody since 4/10/2008, the applicant was entitled to bail on the same reasoning - Held that bail granted subject to conditions (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicant, accused No. 19 in an MCOC Act case, is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail, and considering the long period of custody without commencement of trial.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Bail application allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall report to the investigating officer on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. until further orders. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Law Points

  • Bail
  • Parity
  • MCOCA
  • Delay in trial
  • Right to speedy trial
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (12) 74

Criminal Bail Application No. 1608 of 2012

2012-12-04

Abhay M. Thipsay

Mr. Mubin Solkar i/b Ms. Tahera Qureshi for applicant, Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for State

Afroz Firoz Mujawar @ Dastagir

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail application under MCOC Act

Remedy Sought

Applicant sought bail on ground of parity with co-accused and long custody without trial

Filing Reason

Applicant was in custody since 4/10/2008 and trial had not commenced

Previous Decisions

Co-accused No. 9 Mohd. Atik Mohd. Iqbal was granted bail by this court on 24/09/2012 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1047 of 2011

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused No. 9 who was granted bail? Whether the long period of custody without commencement of trial entitles the applicant to bail?

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant's counsel submitted that the case of the applicant is on par with that of accused No. 9 who was released on bail, and therefore the applicant deserves bail on the same reasoning. State's APP opposed the bail application.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the case of an accused is on par with a co-accused who has been granted bail, and the trial has not commenced despite long custody, the accused is entitled to bail on the same reasoning, as continued detention would infringe the right to a speedy trial.

Judgment Excerpts

The applicant is in custody since 4/10/2008. Admittedly the trial has not commenced. Even the charge has not yet been framed. Since it is not in dispute that the case of the applicant is almost on par with that of the said accused, who has been released on bail as aforesaid and that the facts of the case, as mentioned in the said order and the reasoning thereof squarely applies to the case of the present applicant also...

Procedural History

The applicant was arrested on 4/10/2008 in connection with the Ahmedabad bomb blasts case. A chargesheet was filed for various offences under IPC, Arms Act, Explosives Act, UAP Act, IT Act, and MCOCA. The applicant filed Criminal Bail Application No. 1608 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court. The court heard the application and allowed it on 04/12/2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 295A, 505(2), 507, 506(II), 120(B), 121, 122, 286
  • Arms Act, 1959: 25, 3
  • Explosives Act, 1884:
  • Explosive Substances Act, 1908:
  • Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act): 13(1)(a)(b), 16, 18, 19, 20
  • Information Technology Act, 2000: 66
  • Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA): 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in MCOCA Case Due to Parity with Co-Accused and Delay in Trial. Applicant, in custody since 2008, granted bail as trial not commenced and case similar to co-accused who was already bailed.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Caste Scrutiny Committee Orders in Gram Panchayat Election Disqualification Cases — Caste Validity Not Required for Candidature Under Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. The co...