High Time Courts Distinguish Between 'Genuine' & 'Made Up' Cases Of Long Incarceration: Bombay High Court Denies Bail To MCOCA Accused

While noting the 'well designed' attempt on the part of an accused under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) 1999, to ensure the trial does not commence, the Bombay High Court recently emphasised on the need for the courts to distinguish between 'genuine' cases of 'long incarceration' and 'made up' cases, wherein the delay in a trial is attributable to an accused.

Single-judge Justice Ravindra Joshi while deciding a bail plea filed by an accused in an extortion case, noted that the applicant before him - Vikram Bhutekar along with other co-accused in the case, together, resorted to activities which ensured non-commencement of the trial in the instant case. 

"It is high time, that the Courts are required to distinguish between genuine cases of long incarceration and the trial being not proceeded for reasons attributable to the Accused persons. Without considering this issue and unless facts of case justify the grant of bail, whether only on the ground of long incarceration bail can be granted more particularly when apparent concerted acts are seen from accused before the Trial Court to ensure that the Trial is not commenced, or even if it commences does not get over in reasonable time and ground of long incarceration is created," Justice Joshi observed in an order passed on March 27.

Bhutekar along with other accused in the case, was booked in the instant FIR on April 7, 2021 when they group was extorting money from vegetable vendors outside Dadar railway station in Mumbai. When the vendors refused to pay the amounts demanded, they were assaulted which resulted in registration of the present crime.

Seeking bail on the ground of 'long incarceration' Bhutekar highlighted that he has been languishing in the prison for nearly 4 years and 7 months and that he had always wanted the trial to proceed and end at the earliest and had never conducted in a way that would cause delay. 

The judge, however, took into account the arguments put forth by Additional Public Prosecutor HJ Dehdia, who relied on the roznama of the trial court, which showed that on several dates, the applicant's counsel sought adjournment and on some dates, they remained absent. He argued that the accused in the instant case, indulged into a 'well designed' attempt to delay the trial. 

Justice Joshi, in his order, underlined that when an applicant/accused seeks bail on the ground of long incarceration, it is bounden duty of court to see, that long incarceration has been on account of the delay, on account of prosecution or acts attributable to the accused person. The judge further stressed that in cases where MCOCA is invoked, there are chances that all the accused persons would act in concert and together delay the trial. 

"Prima-facie perusal of roznama indicates that there is reason to believe that there was well designed attempt on the part of the accused person to ensure trial is not commenced. Here in this case there is no material on record to indicate that for reasons attributable to prosecution or even owing to pendency in trial Court, the trial has not commenced. On the contrary there is reason to accept contention of prosecution that the delay is solely attributable to the accused including applicant," the judges noted. 

Justice Joshi while denying bail to Bhutekar, said that he cannot be permitted to delay trial and then make grievance of long incarceration. 

Appearance:

Advocates Pankaj Kavale, Raj Dali and Abhishek Satpute appeared for the Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor HJ Dehdia represented the State.

Case Title: Vikram Vijay Bhutekar vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application 3809 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 172

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment