Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode vs The State Of Maharashtra

2024 INSC 1017 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.12939 of 2024)

SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODE …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)

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

Signature Not Verified application for bail filed by the appellant. Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2024.12.19 18:04:39 IST Reason: 1

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.

2

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 sought to be placed by the appellant on the case

of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

and Another1. 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 Shetty2.

1 (2024) 9 SCC 813 : 2024 INSC 645 2 (2012) 10 SCC 561 : 2012 INSC 494 3

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 Enforcement3, 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. 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 : 2024 INSC 595

4 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 Enforcement4.

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 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.

4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269 : 2024 INSC 632

5

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.

6

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.

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.

7

18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

..............................J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 18, 2024.

8