KARTIK MOHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present proceedings are peppered with a chequered history. The quintessential thrust, however, is on the Petitioner's grievance of being incarcerated for more that seven and half years for offences for which he claims to have undergone the maximum sentence. The protest of the Petitioner against his prolonged incarceration traveled up to the Apex Court by way of separate Special Leave Petitions against Orders passed by this Court rejecting his Bail Application/s as well as on admission of the present Petition on a limited issue. All the SLP's were dismissed albeit with certain observations/directions. In reference to the Special Leave Petition against the Order on a limited admission of this Petition, the Supreme Court vide its Order dtd. 1/4/2024 granted liberty to the Petitioner to make submissions on all reliefs claimed in this Petition. We were requested to consider all the submissions made on merits and dispose off this Petition expeditiously considering the long incarceration of the Petitioner. In this backdrop, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Vide Order dtd. 5/9/2023, this Petition was admitted only in terms of prayer clause (b) raising an arguable issue, as to whether an accused while being tried under the provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 ("MPID Act") can simultaneously be tried under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Pursuant to the Judgment and Order dtd. 1/4/2024 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) Diary No 51460 of 2023, Rule is issued on all the prayers in the Petition and is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(3.) After the matter was heard for some time, Mr. Subhash Jha, learned counsel representing the Petitioner on instructions sought leave to withdraw all prayers in the Petition save and except prayer clause (f) seeking to be set at liberty on account of having suffered long incarceration as an under trial for the maximum period with which he claims, he could be convicted. We thus, restrict our finding only to this prayer, reserving liberty to the Petitioner to raise all other issues before the trial Court during the trial.