In a significant order addressing the prolonged undertrial detention of an accused charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and multiple Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences, the Bombay High Court granted bail after nearly nine years of incarceration. The Court relied on the principle of parity, extending the same relief granted to a co-accused in an earlier order.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Mohd. Sabir @ Chakur Mohd. Memon, was arrested on 15.08.2017 in connection with Crime No. 239/2017 registered at Police Station Pachpaoli, District Nagpur. The offences alleged include grave charges under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC, alongside other provisions such as Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 504, and 506(B) of the IPC, Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Sections 3(1)(i), (ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
Key Facts
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.08.2017 without the trial being concluded.
- A co-accused, Shoaib Khan s/o Nasir Khan, was granted bail by the same Court on 29.06.2026 in Criminal Application [B.A.] No. 663/2026.
- The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity, arguing that the same reasons cited in the co-accused’s bail order should apply to him.
Procedural History
- 15.08.2017: Applicant arrested and remanded to custody.
- 29.06.2026: Co-accused Shoaib Khan granted bail in Criminal Application [B.A.] No. 663/2026.
- 14.07.2026: Present bail application (Criminal Application [B.A.] No. 828/2026) filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds of parity with the co-accused and the prolonged delay in the conclusion of the trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the principle of parity, given that a co-accused had already been granted bail under similar circumstances, and whether the prolonged undertrial detention warranted judicial intervention under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. R.M. Daga, argued that:
- The applicant had been in custody for over nine years without the trial being concluded, violating his right to speedy trial under Article 21.
- The Court had already granted bail to a co-accused on 29.06.2026, and the same reasons should apply to the present applicant under the principle of parity.
- The prolonged detention without trial amounted to punishment without conviction, which is impermissible under law.
For the Respondent/State
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.), Mr. U.R. Phasate, opposed the bail application but did not present substantive arguments beyond the merits of the case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since 15.08.2017, and despite the lapse of nearly nine years, the trial had not concluded. The Court relied on the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail in an earlier order dated 29.06.2026. The Court held that the same reasoning applied to the present applicant, as there was no material distinction between the two cases.
The Court emphasized that prolonged undertrial detention without the trial being concluded raises serious concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court further noted that the delay in trial could not be attributed to the applicant, and thus, continued detention would be unjust.
"Even the present applicant is in jail since 15/08/2017, almost more than 9 years are lapsed and till today the trial is not concluded, therefore, so far as the order dated 29/06/2026 which was passed in Criminal Application [B.A] No.663/2026 in the case of Shoaib Khan s/o Nasir Khan, he was released on bail by recording detailed reasons, and therefore, same reasons would be applicable while releasing the present applicant on bail."
The Verdict
The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of the like amount. The Court imposed the following conditions:
- The applicant shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The applicant shall provide his residential address and cell number to the concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency.
- The applicant shall attend every date of trial regularly. Failure to do so, without a genuine reason satisfactory to the trial court, shall entitle the State to seek cancellation of bail.
- The order disposes of all pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parity in Bail Matters
- The judgment reinforces the principle of parity in bail matters, particularly in cases involving co-accused. Practitioners can argue that if one accused has been granted bail under similar circumstances, others should not be denied the same relief without material distinction.
- Courts are likely to scrutinize prolonged undertrial detention more rigorously, especially in cases where the trial has not progressed despite years of incarceration.
Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right
-
The judgment underscores that delay in trial cannot be used as a ground to deny bail, particularly when the delay is not attributable to the accused. This aligns with the right to speedy trial under Article 21, which has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak.
-
Practitioners should highlight unreasonable delays in trial proceedings as a ground for bail, especially in cases involving grave offences where the accused has been in custody for an extended period without conviction.
Conditions for Bail Under MCOCA
-
The judgment clarifies that even in cases registered under MCOCA, which deals with organized crime, bail can be granted if the trial is unreasonably delayed. However, the Court may impose stringent conditions to ensure compliance, such as:
- Regular attendance at trial.
- Non-interference with evidence or witnesses.
- Restrictions on changing residence without intimation.
-
This sets a precedent for future bail applications under MCOCA, where accused persons can seek relief on the grounds of prolonged detention and parity with co-accused.
