Thane, Feb 21: The Special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court in Thane has granted bail to prime accused Prashant Bhaskar Mhatre, who was arrested in 2017 in connection with the murder of Bhiwandi corporator Manoj Mhatre.
The bail was granted after the accused had spent nine years behind bars. The court, presided over by Special MCOCA Judge V. G. Mohite, held in its order that the prolonged incarceration of the accused and the delay in concluding the trial infringed upon his right to a speedy trial.
Details of the 2017 murder
Corporator Manoj Mhatre was shot and hacked to death on February 14, 2017, outside his residential apartment in Bhiwandi. According to the prosecution, the deceased had arrived home when five assailants, including Prashant, allegedly opened fire and attacked him with a sickle. He was rushed to Jupiter Hospital but was declared dead.
Arrest and MCOC charges
The prosecution had invoked provisions of the MCOC Act, alleging that the murder was the outcome of political rivalry and an organised criminal conspiracy aimed at establishing supremacy in the area. Prashant Mhatre was arrested on March 28, 2017, and has remained in custody since then.
Bail plea and prosecution’s stand
In his bail plea, the accused argued that he had been behind bars for almost nine years and that, despite directions from the Supreme Court to conclude the trial within a stipulated time, the prosecution failed to complete the evidence. The prosecution submitted that it had examined 65 witnesses till January 31, 2026, and that several more were yet to be examined.
The prosecution opposed the plea, citing the seriousness of the offence, alleged confessional statements, call data records and a purported dying declaration naming the accused. It also argued that Sections 21(4) and 21(5) of the MCOC Act impose a stringent bar on the grant of bail.
Court’s observations on delay
While deciding the bail application, the court observed:
“Apart from the examined 65 witnesses, the prosecution also intends to record evidence of a further 17 to 18 witnesses, most of whom are investigating officers and police personnel. Considerable time is required to record their evidence, i.e., examination-in-chief and cross-examination by 21 accused. However, the prosecution has not disclosed the full factual position before the Apex Court while opposing the bail application and seeking extension of time to conclude the trial. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, this court will require approximately one month to prepare and record the statements of 21 accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. Till date, the evidence of 65 witnesses has been recorded and more than 500 documents have been exhibited. The prosecution intends to prove and exhibit further documents while recording the evidence of the proposed witnesses. The total number of documents may exceed 600. Therefore, considerable time will be required for reading and appreciation of those documents. In these circumstances, nearly one year’s time may be required for disposal of the case, thereby infringing the accused’s right to a speedy trial.”
Right to speedy trial emphasised
The court noted that, despite extensions granted by the Supreme Court, the prosecution could not conclude the trial within the stipulated period. The judge observed that substantial time would still be required to examine the remaining witnesses — including investigating officers — and to record statements of 21 accused under Section 313 of the CrPC.
The court further remarked that the trial, which commenced in February 2024 after framing of charges, had seen the examination of 65 witnesses and exhibition of over 500 documents, with more evidence yet to be led. In these circumstances, the court held that nearly another year may be required to conclude the trial, thereby affecting the accused’s right to speedy justice.
Also Watch:
Parity argument rejected
While rejecting the argument of parity with 17 co-accused who had already been granted bail, the court acknowledged that the applicant’s alleged role was distinct. Nevertheless, it ruled that the prolonged incarceration outweighed the statutory embargo under the MCOC Act.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
