Supreme Court of India
SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- [2024] 12 S.C.R. 837
- Decided
- 18 December 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21, mandating the grant of bail even if the twin conditions under MCOCA are not satisfied, and the trial cannot be delayed on the ground of non‑production of the accused.
Summary
The appellant, Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode, was arrested under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and remained incarcerated for about five years without being produced before the trial judge on most of the 102 scheduled dates, and without charges being framed. The Special Judge and the High Court rejected his bail application, relying on the twin conditions for bail under MCOCA. The Supreme Court examined whether the prolonged detention violated the right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Citing Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court held that such delay amounts to imposing a sentence without trial and therefore the bail denial was erroneous. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of the lower courts, granted bail with stringent conditions, and directed authorities to devise a mechanism to ensure the accused’s production, either physically or virtually, on every trial date.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail despite the trial court’s reliance on the twin conditions under MCOCA, given the prolonged incarceration without trial.
- Whether the delay caused by non‑production of the accused violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Articles 19 and 21.
- Whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the bail application on the facts of the case.
- Whether a procedural mechanism should be mandated to ensure the accused’s production before the trial judge on each date.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration In six years, out of 102 dates, on most of the dates the appellant- accused was not produced before the Court either physically or virtually. Prolonged incarceration. Bail rejected by High Court. Headnotes† Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, on account of non-production of the appellant- accused – Appellant incarcerated for approximately five years – If entitled to bail: Held: Yes – Prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence
Subjects
Trial prolongedNon-production of the accusedBailProlonged incarcerationProlonged delaySentence without the trialRight to speedy trialArticles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of IndiaCharges not framedSorry state of affairsRights of the victimStringent conditionsPhysicallyVirtually
Judgment
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 837 : 2024 INSC 1017
Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode
v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 5438 of 2024)
18 December 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In six years, out of 102 dates, on most of the dates the appellant-
accused was not produced before the Court either physically or
virtually. Prolonged incarceration. Bail rejected by High Court.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – Trial
prolonged on account of non-production of the appellant-
accused – Appellant incarcerated for approximately five
years – If entitled to bail:
Held: Yes – Prolonged incarceration without the accused being
made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence
without undergoing the trial – Right to speedy trial is also one of the
facets of the rights flowing from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution
of India – Charges not framed in the cases registered prior to
the registration of the present case – 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 – Such a prolonged delay is also not in the interest of
the rights of the victim – Impugned order quashed and set aside –
Appellant granted bail, stringent conditions imposed – Constitution
of India – Articles 21, 19. [Paras 10, 9, 11, 12]
Directions by Supreme Court – Trials prolonged on the ground
of non-production of the accused persons – Deprecated:
Held: A mechanism to be evolved 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 – Copy of this
* Author
838 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
order to 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. [Para 17]
Case Law Cited
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another,
2024 INSC 645 : [2024] 7 SCR 992 : (2024) 9 SCC 813; State
of Maharashtra v. Vishwnath Maranna Shetty, 2012 INSC 494 :
[2012] 9 SCR 873 : (2012) 10 SCC 561; Manish Sisodia v.
Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 : [2024] 8 SCR 1061 :
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920; Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate
of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 632 : [2024] 8 SCR 717 : 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2269 – referred to.
List of Acts
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999; Constitution
of India.
List of Keywords
Trial prolonged; Non-production of the accused; Bail; Prolonged
incarceration; Prolonged delay; Sentence without the trial; Right
to speedy trial; Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
Charges not framed; Sorry state of affairs; Rights of the victim;
Stringent conditions; Physically; Virtually.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
5438 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in CRLA No. 298 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Anand Dilip Landge, Sandip Magar, Kalyan Landge, Mrs. Sangeeta
S Pahune Patil, Ms. Revati P. Kharde, Sumit Kumar, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Varad Kilor, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Sourav Singh, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Satyajit A. Desai, Siddharth
Gautam, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Sachin Singh, Preetraj R. Dhok,
Ananya Thapliyal, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 839
Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the order passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal
Appeal No.298 of 2024, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant
herein challenging the order passed by the Additional Special Judge
(M.C.O.C. Act), Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Judge’),
rejecting the application for bail filed by the appellant.
3. Shri Anand Dilip Landge, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well
as the learned Special Judge have grossly erred in rejecting the
application filed by the appellant. It is submitted that relying solely
on one criminal antecedent, the provisions of Maharashtra Control
of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the said Act’) have been
invoked against the appellant herein. Relying on certain photographs,
the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
not present at the place of the incident, inasmuch as he was 26 kms.,
away from the place where the incident occurred. The learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that when the appellant was
arrested, he was 21 years of age and after approximately five years
of incarceration, he is now 26 years of age. He, therefore, submits
that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. The appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. Varad Kilor, learned counsel
appearing for the State and Smt. Anagha S. Desai, learned counsel
appearing for the complainant.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State as
well as for the complainant that the learned Single Judge of the High
Court, by an elaborate order, rejected the appeal of the appellant
herein. It is submitted that the appellant is a part of a gang which
has caused terror in the area and is indulging in criminal activities.
Smt. Anagha S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the complainant
submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the reliance
840 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sought to be placed by the appellant on the case of Javed Gulam
Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another.1 She therefore
submits that no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
6. At the outset, we may state that the learned Single Judge by an
elaborate and well reasoned order rejected the appeal of the appellant
herein.
7. We, therefore, find no error in the reasoning adopted by the learned
Single Judge, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has relied on
the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v.
Vishwnath Maranna Shetty.2
8. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would reveal
that the learned Judge has basically rejected the appeal on the ground
that the twin conditions as required under the provisions of the said
Act i.e. (i) Satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and
(ii) He/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. While
doing so, the learned Judge has given elaborate reasonings and has
held that the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail.
9. However, it is to be noted that this Court in the case of Manish
Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement,3 while considering the
twin conditions, as applicable under the provisions of Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 has held that prolonged incarceration
without the accused being made to face the trial would result in
forcing him to face the sentence without undergoing the trial. In
the said case of Manish Sisodia (supra), the Court has also held
that the right to speedy trial is also one of the facets of the rights
flowing from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The
said judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra),
has been constantly followed in various other judgments including
the case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement.4
10. 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
1 2024 INSC 645 : [2024] 7 SCR 992 : (2024) 9 SCC 813
2 2012 INSC 494 : [2012] 9 SCR 873 : (2012) 10 SCC 561
3 2024 INSC 595 : [2024] 8 SCR 1061 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 :
4 2024 INSC 632 : [2024] 8 SCR 717 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 841
Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
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.
11. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the appeal. The order passed by
the Special Court dated 02.02.2024 and the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge dated 29.07.2024 are quashed and set aside.
12. In order to protect the interest of the prosecution as well as the
victim, we are inclined to impose certain stringent conditions on the
appellant.
13. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on the following
terms and conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall execute a bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with one or more sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The appellant shall not enter the area of Akluj Tehsil during
the trial.
(iii) The appellant shall intimate his place of residence to the Trial
Court as well as to the Police Station within whose jurisdiction
he would reside.
(iv) The appellant shall continue to appear before the learned
Special Judge on every date regularly.
14. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
15. It is pertinent to mention that during the hearing of the present
appeal, as already discussed above, a sorry state of affairs is being
depicted. The trial is being prolonged on the ground that the appellant
is not produced before the Trial Judge either physically or virtually.
We are informed that this is not a solitary case but in many cases
such a difficulty arises.
842 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
16. We, therefore, direct 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.
17. 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.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Trial prolonged"Sign in to search