Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Be Diluted Merely Because Case Arises Under Special Enactment Like MCOCA: Delhi High Court

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed,

“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 Applicant was accused of playing a direct role in multiple offences committed by a syndicate, including those involving murder, kidnapping for ransom, robberies and extending threats, criminal intimidation, across different jurisdictions.

He was arrested in June 2017 following issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants and his confessional statement was recorded, wherein he allegedly admitted to his involvement in the alleged syndicate.

He had approached the High Court seeking bail primarily on grounds of long period of custody and delay in completing the trial, as so far only 35 out of the 126 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

Prosecution opposed his plea on grounds of grave criminal antecedents. It submitted that the case is being investigated under MCOCA, which is a special legislation aimed at curbing organised criminal syndicates, and Applicant's previous criminal record clearly establishes that he is a hardcore criminal.

The High Court, at the outset observed that Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The twin conditions to be satisfied are:

(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of release;

(b) Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

However, the Court was of the view that the rigour of Section 21(4) stands diluted when there is inordinate delay in concluding the trial. It observed,

“...while Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent statutory conditions for the grant of bail under Section 483 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of CrPC), these provisions cannot be construed in a manner that forecloses judicial scrutiny under Article 21 of the Constitution. Where there is a manifest and continuing violation of the right to a speedy trial, constitutional courts are not only empowered but duty-bound to intervene.”

It relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) where the Supreme Court held that where trials under special laws are unduly delayed, the rigour of stringent bail provisions must yield to the constitutional promise of liberty. The more rigorous the provisions of the legislation, the more expeditious the adjudication must be., the Top Court had said.

The High Court also cited Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India (2022) in which the Apex Court held that where enactments stipulate strict conditions for granting bail, it is the unequivocal responsibility of the State to ensure that such trials are prioritized and concluded within a reasonable timeframe.

Therefore, the High Court said, “although Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, these provisions 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.”

With these observations, it granted bail.

Appearance: Mr. Akshay, Mr. Anurag S. Tomar, Ms. Shivangi Shokeen and Mr. Dinesh Ashok Kr., Advocates fo Petitioner; Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for Respondent

Case title: Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan v. State Of Nct Of Delhi

Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 552/2025

Click here to read judgment