In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), citing prolonged pre-trial incarceration of over six years and delay in the examination of witnesses.

The Court noted that only 11 of 100 witnesses had been examined so far, which constituted a violation of the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Background of the Case

The case stems from a July 23, 2017 incident, in which the Delhi Police Special Cell seized 3 kg of heroin during a raid based on a secret tip-off. The applicant, who was driving a car registered to a known NDPS offender, was arrested at the scene. While in custody, he allegedly admitted to supplying heroin to two individuals, which led to further arrests and recovery of additional contraband. The State has alleged the existence of a structured, financially motivated drug trafficking syndicate.

The applicant also faced a prior FIR under IPC Sections 307/34 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, though he was later acquitted in that matter. He had already secured bail in the connected NDPS case.

Arguments of the Parties

Counsel for the applicant contended that MCOCA was improperly invoked, arguing that the applicant was merely a driver unaware of the drugs in the vehicle. It was further submitted that despite spending over six years in custody, only a fraction of the prosecution witnesses had been examined, with the trial progressing at an unreasonably slow pace.

Opposing the plea, the Special Public Prosecutor stressed the serious nature of the allegations and maintained that the applicant was part of a wider criminal network. It was submitted that the previous acquittal was irrelevant to the present charges under MCOCA, and that the solution to delay was expedited trial—not bail.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

Justice Amit Mahajan, while adjudicating the bail application, observed that although the conditions for bail under MCOCA are stringent, constitutional rights cannot be rendered meaningless by procedural delays. Relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, the Court reaffirmed that statutory restrictions on bail must give way when prolonged incarceration threatens the applicant’s right to life and liberty.

The Court noted that the applicant was neither the kingpin of the alleged syndicate nor involved in any fatal outcomes. He had already been granted bail in the related NDPS case and acquitted in the Arms Act case.

Citing Arun v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court emphasised that bail could be granted under special statutes like MCOCA when trial delays result in unjustified pre-trial detention. The Court concluded that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose in light of the delay and the applicant’s peripheral role.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The applicant was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of the same amount. The Court imposed strict conditions, including:

• Prohibition on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses

• Restriction on leaving the country without prior Court permission

• Mandatory weekly appearance before the Investigating Officer every Monday at 4 PM

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the adjudication of the bail plea and would not affect the merits of the ongoing trial.

Conclusion

Granting bail, the Court underlined the paramount importance of timely justice and reaffirmed that statutory constraints under MCOCA cannot eclipse constitutional guarantees when a trial is unreasonably delayed.

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar @ Raje v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Case No.: Bail Appln. 2986/2023
Coram: Justice Amit Mahajan

Counsel for Applicant: Adv. Akshay Bhandari, Adv. Anmol Sachdeva, Adv. Kushal Kumar, Adv. Meghna Saroa, and Adv. Janak Raj Ambawat
Counsel for Respondent: Adv. Akhand Pratap Singh (Standing Counsel), Adv. Samridhi Dobhal, Adv. Krishna Mohan Chandel, and Adv. Hrithik Maurya