Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Gang Member Booked Under MCOCA | Prolonged Incarceration Of 8 Years Without Trial Violates Article 21
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula granted bail to an accused who had been in custody for over eight years under charges framed under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The Court held that the prolonged period of incarceration, combined with delay in trial proceedings, violated the accused's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court further directed that the accused be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with surety, subject to specific conditions. The final directive also took into account the acquittal of the accused in related cases and stated that further detention in such circumstances would defeat the ends of justice.
The matter arose from an FIR dated 19th April 2016, registered under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi. The investigation was initially directed against an individual named Manoj @ Morkheri and others alleged to be part of an organized criminal syndicate operating in Delhi NCR and adjoining states. The syndicate was purportedly involved in serious crimes such as murder, extortion, robbery, kidnapping for ransom, and criminal intimidation.
According to the prosecution, the accused Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan was a member of this syndicate. The FIR was followed by approval for invoking MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The prosecution submitted that the syndicate's activities satisfied the criteria for "organized crime" and "continuing unlawful activity" under Sections 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f) of MCOCA.
Naresh Kumar was arrested on 16th June 2017, while already in custody in connection with another FIR. He had earlier been declared a proclaimed offender in the present case. Post-arrest, a confession under Section 18(1) of MCOCA was recorded, where the accused allegedly admitted to his role in the syndicate. Similar confessions by co-accused persons also implicated him.
The prosecution's narrative involved various criminal cases purportedly involving the accused, including allegations of murder (FIR No. 415/2011), kidnapping for ransom (FIR No. 497/2011), and armed robbery (FIR No. 914/2011). The prosecution claimed that weapons used in some of these offences were supplied by the syndicate.
In support of the bail application, counsel for the accused contended that the accused had already undergone eight years of incarceration and that only 35 out of 126 witnesses had been examined during this period. Citing various Supreme Court decisions, including Mohd. Enamul Haque v. Enforcement Directorate, Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, it was argued that prolonged pre-trial detention should justify the grant of bail even in cases under special statutes like MCOCA.
It was further contended that the invocation of MCOCA was unsustainable since it required a showing of prior chargesheets in which cognizance had been taken by competent courts. The accused had been acquitted in FIR No. 497/2011, the primary predicate offence considered for applying MCOCA. According to the defense, no other FIRs could satisfy the conditions of Section 2(1)(d) regarding "continuing unlawful activity."
The defense submitted a chart of criminal cases against the accused, noting that he had been acquitted in most of them and was on bail in others. The defense also stated the absence of pecuniary benefit or seizure of incriminating assets from the accused's residence. It was argued that MCOCA's requirement of criminal activity for economic gain was not met in this case.
Another key contention was the principle of parity. The accused argued that similarly placed co-accused individuals had already been granted bail, including those with more serious criminal records or prior convictions.
The State opposed the bail application, maintaining that MCOCA was properly invoked and that the accused was part of a long-standing criminal syndicate. It was submitted that granting bail could result in the accused absconding or tampering with evidence. The prosecution also cited incidents involving the accused while in custody, registered under the Prisons Act and the NDPS Act, to support their claim that the accused had not reformed.
The Court examined the matter in detail, particularly the prolonged period of detention. It recorded: "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."
Relying on precedents including Mohd. Muslim, the Court stated: "Protracted incarceration as an undertrial, even in cases involving serious offences, must weigh heavily in favour of granting bail, particularly when such delay is not attributable to the accused."
Further referring to Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court observed: "We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial."
Discussing the role of speedy trials in justifying the rigours imposed by special statutes, the Court stated: "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."
Analyzing the applicant’s case specifically, the Court noted: "As per the latest nominal roll, as on 12th March, 2025, the Applicant has already spent 7 years, 8 months, and 21 days in custody. Thus, as of today, he has been in custody for more than 8 years, and despite the prolonged detention, the trial remains far from conclusion."
Regarding the invocation of MCOCA, the Court found: "The invocation of MCOCA was primarily based on the Applicant’s alleged involvement in FIR No. 497/2011, in which he stands acquitted. This FIR formed the predicate offence necessary to establish the element of ‘continuing unlawful activity’ under Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA. In view of the acquittal, the foundational basis for invoking MCOCA against the Applicant stands undermined."
The Court also acknowledged: "Upon a comprehensive consideration... the Applicant has either been acquitted or has been granted bail in all the cases referred to by the State." It further noted that "the pendency of the present matter stands as the sole impediment preventing the Applicant from availing the benefit of liberty... Such an outcome defeats the ends of justice and cannot be permitted to persist indefinitely."
The Court directed that the applicant be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of INR 50,000/- along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court or Metropolitan Magistrate. The Court imposed specific conditions including that the applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and shall intimate the Court regarding any change in his residential address by way of an affidavit.
The applicant was directed to appear before the Court whenever the matter is taken up for hearing. He was also required to provide all mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and to ensure that such numbers remain operational. The Court ordered that the applicant shall not switch off or change his mobile number without informing the Investigating Officer.
The applicant was directed to report to the Investigating Officer on the second and fourth Friday of every month at 4:00 PM, and he should not be kept waiting for more than one hour. The applicant was restrained from indulging in any criminal activity and from communicating with or contacting any prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.
It was clarified that the applicant would not be released on bail until he secured bail in other cases as required by law. The Court also clarified that its observations regarding the merits were solely for the purpose of the bail application and should not influence the trial. The State was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the applicant violated any condition or committed any similar offence.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Akshay, Mr. Anurag S. Tomar, Ms. Shivangi Shokeen and Mr. Dinesh Ashok Kr., Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP
Case Title: Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan vs State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5898
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 552/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
