https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793316 In bail proceedings under MCOCA, the Court treated Article 21 and the right to a speedy trial as relevant, but held that prolonged custody and trial delay were not, on these facts, enough to cross the statutory embargo in Section 21(4) because the delay was not solely attributable to the prosecution or court and the case involved multiple accused, witnesses and complex allegations. The Court also rejected parity, finding material distinctions between the petitioner and co-accused who had obtained bail. The petitioner was prima facie alleged to be a co-leader handling proceeds of crime and facilitating the extortion network, so she was not similarly situated. Bail was therefore refused. en-us Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jun 2026 08:36:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793316 In bail proceedings under MCOCA, the Court treated Article 21 and the right to a speedy trial as relevant, but held that prolonged custody and trial delay were not, on these facts, enough to cross the statutory embargo in Section 21(4) because the delay was not solely attributable to the prosecution or court and the case involved multiple accused, witnesses and complex allegations. The Court also rejected parity, finding material distinctions between the petitioner and co-accused who had obtained bail. The petitioner was prima facie alleged to be a co-leader handling proceeds of crime and facilitating the extortion network, so she was not similarly situated. Bail was therefore refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793316