LexSIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 crimina
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.