It is definitely absolutely in consonance with the all time-tested popular maxim titled “Justice delayed is justice denied” and entirely in order that one of the most prestigious High Courts in India — the Delhi High Court — while reinforcing robustly the most fundamental principle of right to speedy trial, in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan vs State of NCT of Delhi in Bail Appln. 552/2025 (Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:5898) — reserved on July 2, 2025 and pronounced on July 22, 2025 — admitted on bail an accused under the most stringent Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, citing prolonged incarceration of over 8 years as the primary reason for granting bail.

The Delhi High Court made it crystal clear that the right to speedy trial cannot be whittled down. Further, it was abundantly clarified that where there is a manifest and continuing violation of this right, Constitutional Courts are not only empowered but duty-bound to intervene.

Introduction of the Judgment

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Sanjeev Narula (Single Judge Bench, Delhi High Court) sets the ball in motion by stating in para 1:

“The present bail application filed under Sections 483 read with 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeks grant of regular bail in proceedings emanating from case FIR No. 55/2016 dated 19th April, 2016, registered at P.S. Crime Branch, under Sections 3/4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. Subsequently, by a supplementary chargesheet dated 7th December, 2017, the Applicant has been implicated under Sections 3(1)/3(2)/3(3)/3(4)/3(5) of MCOCA (“MCOCA”).”

Facts of the Case (Para 2)

The Bench elaborates on the facts of the prosecution case:

• 2.1 The case was registered against Manoj @ Morkheri and his associates — part of a structured criminal syndicate active in Delhi NCR and nearby states. Their crimes included murder, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, robbery, and attempts to murder — all for pecuniary gain.
• 2.2 The FIR was registered following a proposal to invoke MCOCA due to their continued criminal activity. The network was said to function with coordination and had amassed illicit wealth.
• 2.3 The Applicant was absconding and declared a proclaimed offender, later arrested on June 16, 2017. The trial is ongoing at Rohini Courts.
• 2.4 The Applicant confessed before the competent authority and admitted to being part of the syndicate.
• 2.5 He is accused in multiple grave cases including:
  • Murder (FIR No. 415/2011, Hisar)
  • Kidnapping for ransom (FIR No. 497/2011, Delhi)
  • Robbery (FIR No. 914/2011, Karnal)

Legal Discussion

In para 5, the Court considers Section 21(4) of MCOCA:

“No person accused under this Act shall be released on bail unless:

• (a) Public Prosecutor is given opportunity to oppose;
• (b) The Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend.”

Right to Speedy Trial (Para 7)

The Court firmly reiterates:

“The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is not abstract. It is a vital facet of personal liberty and cannot be ignored even under MCOCA.”

Supreme Court Precedents

• Para 8: Cites Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India, asserting that delays dilute the stringency of bail provisions.
• Para 9: References Mohd. Muslim, holding that prolonged undertrial incarceration must favor bail.
• Para 10: Reaffirms through Satender Kumar Antil that Section 436A CrPC applies even to special statutes.
• Para 11: In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, Supreme Court underscored the need for speedy trials in the context of stringent special laws.

Court’s Observations on Bail (Para 23-24)

The State cited that the Applicant is a Proclaimed Offender and that many witnesses are yet to be examined. But the Court ruled:

“Bail cannot be denied solely on apprehensions. The Applicant has already spent significant time in custody, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. Bail conditions can address prosecution concerns.”

Bail Granted (Para 24)

The Court directed release on regular bail, subject to:

1. Personal bond of ₹50,000 and surety of same amount.
2. No travel abroad without Court’s permission.
3. Furnish permanent address and notify changes.
4. Appear in Court regularly.
5. Provide active mobile numbers; no changes without intimation.
6. Report to IO on 2nd and 4th Friday every month at 4 PM.
7. No criminal activity or witness tampering.
8. Bail applicable only after securing bail in other pending cases.

Further Clarifications (Para 25-27)

• Para 25: Observations on merits are only for bail consideration and not the trial itself.
• Para 26: Prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if conditions are violated.
• Para 27: Order to be sent to Jail Superintendent for compliance.

Conclusion (Para 28)

With the above directions, the application was disposed of.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh