Judgment : 1. The applicant is the accused no.9 in MCOC Special Case No.19 of 2011 pending before the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCOC Act'). He is in custody since 17th July 2011. The applicant had previously also applied for bail, but his application was rejected by me. (Bail Application No.982/12 decided on 12th August 2013). Now, the prayer for bail has been renewed primarily on two grounds i.e. that though a period of one year has elapsed since rejection of the previous application, the trial has not yet commenced, and that since the trial did not commence within a reasonable time, a co-accused in this case i.e. Paulson Joseph Palitra, has been released on bail. 2. The facts of the case were fully and carefully considered while rejecting the previous application for bail filed by the applicant. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case as recorded in the said order may be reproduced here, in the same form and manner. 3. The case relates to the murder of one Jyoti Nipendrakumar Dey (popularly known as J. Dey), a journalist. On 11 June 2012, at about 2.30 p.m, the said Jyoti Dey by proceeding on his motorcycle, reached at Pawai, Mumbai. Four persons who were travelling on two motorcycles had been following him, and one of them fired at J.Dey from a fire-arm. J.Dey was taken to hospital, but was declared to be dead before admission. The case was initially registered at Pawai Police Station vide C.R.No.256 of 2011, but on the next day, the investigation of the said crime was transferred to Crime Branch, whereafter the C.R was re-numbered as 57 of 2011 of the Crime Branch, Mumbai. 4. The investigation commenced. The accused nos.1 to 7, all came to be arrested on or before 26 June 2011. The investigation revealed that the murder of J. Dey was committed by the organized crime syndicate headed by Chhota Rajan, and therefore, the provisions of MCOC Act were applied to the said case. 5. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused no.1 Rohit Tangpan Joseph @ Satish Kalya was the person who had actually fired at J. Dey. 5. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused no.1 Rohit Tangpan Joseph @ Satish Kalya was the person who had actually fired at J. Dey. Accused no.2-Anil, Accused No.3-Abhijit and Accused no.4-Nilesh are said to be the other three who were keeping a watch on the movements of J. Dey on the day of incident. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused no.1 Satish Kalya had procured 25 bullets from the applicant, and that, by using five bullets out of the said 25, the accused no.1 - Satish Kalya had killed J. Dey. 6. While dealing with the previous Bail Application itself, it was observed that, admittedly, the only role attributed to the applicant in the alleged offence was of procuring cartridges and of giving the same to one Nainsing Bist - an absconding accused in this case and then, going near Kathgodam Railway Station with the said Nainsing Bist, and handing over the cartridges to Satish Kalya, the accused no.1 in the case who is alleged to be the actual assailant i.e. the person who fired at J.Dey. 7. In the present counter affidavit also, the role of the applicant is stated to be that much only. 8. One aspect of the matter which needs to be mentioned here is that the material against the applicant consists basically only of his own confession recorded under the provisions of section 18 of the MCOC Act. That the case against the applicant was built on the basis of his own confession recorded under the said provision, was noticed while rejecting the previous Bail Application also. It was also observed that though admissible, how much weight should be given to the same, if that be the only material against the accused, for refusing bail to the applicant needed a serious consideration in the light of the observations made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State Vs. Navjot Sandhu, 2005 SCC Cri 1715 (Para 54). It is clear that there is no material to connect the applicant with the murder of J.Dey except on the reasoning that he provided cartridges which were used by the actual assailants for killing J.Dey. It is nobody's case that the applicant was aware of the conspiracy to commit the murder of J. Dey. 9. It is clear that there is no material to connect the applicant with the murder of J.Dey except on the reasoning that he provided cartridges which were used by the actual assailants for killing J.Dey. It is nobody's case that the applicant was aware of the conspiracy to commit the murder of J. Dey. 9. In fact, while rejecting the previous application filed by the applicant, this aspect of the matter was noticed, but it was held that the act of procuring cartridges illegally and handing them over to a person known to be criminal, was itself criminal and that, clearly, the applicant could be attributed with the knowledge that the cartridges were to be used for an obviously illegal purpose and for committing an offence. On this basis. and keeping in mind the involvement of the applicant in some other criminal cases, he was not released on bail. The decision not to release the applicant on bail was governed, to a large extent, by the possibility of the trial commencing within a reasonable time. That the trial would commence within a reasonable time was believed particularly because while rejecting the bail application filed by the said co-accused Paulson Palitra, this Court had granted liberty to the said accused to apply for bail afresh in the event of the trial not commencing within a period of four months from the date of the said order i.e. 8/4/2014. It was, therefore, expected that the trial court and the prosecution being aware of the same, would do their best to commence the trial. Now, though a period of more than 18 months has elapsed from the said date, trial has not yet (even) commenced. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the trial did not commence within a period of four months from the said date, later on, the co-accused Paulson Palitra was released on bail by this Court. That this statement is true and correct, is clear from the record itself. 11. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor vehememently submitted that while refusing to release the applicant on bail, when the previous application made by him was heard, the Court has come to the conclusion about his prima facie involvement in the illegal act of procuring cartridges, and handing the same over to the actual assailants.. 11. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor vehememently submitted that while refusing to release the applicant on bail, when the previous application made by him was heard, the Court has come to the conclusion about his prima facie involvement in the illegal act of procuring cartridges, and handing the same over to the actual assailants.. She also submitted that there is material to indicate that the bullets that were fired at by the accused no.1 Satish at the victim J.Dey were from the same bullets that had been procured by the said Satish Kalya from the applicant. 12. In my opinion, since the said finding was already arrived at by this Court while dealing with the Bail Application filed by the applicant previously, there is no point in emphasizing the same, as has been done by the learned APP. The question that arises is that, based on this limited role attributed to the applicant, how long the applicant should be detained in custody without there being a prospect of commencement of trial. 13. I am informed that draft charges have been submitted by Special Public Prosecutor in-charge of the trial as back as on September 2013. However, admittedly, the charge has not yet been framed. I am informed that the Special court under the MCOC Act is burdened with several pending cases and a number of cases have already been ordered to be expedited by this Court. 14. The fact, however, remains that the trial has not even commenced though the applicant is in custody for a period of more than three years. It does not appear likely that it would be over expeditiously even if it commences in near future. 15. Considering the nature of allegations against the applicant, and that the prosecution itself does not claim that the applicant was a conspirator in respect of the murder of J.Dey, and that only the aforesaid limited role is attributed to him, as also considering the nature of material by which such limited role is supported i.e. the applicant's own confession recorded by a police officer under the provisions of section 18 of the MCOC Act, as also the fact that in spite of the applicant being in custody for a period of three years as an under-trial prisoner, the trial has not yet even commenced, I think it fit to release the applicant on bail. 16. 16. Needless to say that it was already observed and opined, while dealing with the previous application for bail that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant to be not guilty of an offence punishable under the MCOC Act, though it was opined that he, prima facie, appeared to be guilty of some other non-bailable offence/ offences. 17. In the circumstances, Application is allowed. 18. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with one surety in like amount. 19. The applicant shall not contact, meet or approach any of the prosecution witnesses, in any manner, whatsoever. 20. The applicant shall report to the trial court on the first Monday of each calendar month, till the disposal of the case against him. Should the trial court be closed on any given Monday on account of holiday, the applicant shall report to the trial court on the next working day. This would be in addition to the applicant's presence before the trial court on all dates of hearing of the case, as may be fixed by the trial court.