Mumbai: The Bombay High Court granted bail to Tariq Parveen, an alleged key member of the fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim’s syndicate, in a five-year-old case of organised crime and extortion. The court cited his prolonged incarceration without trial as a violation of his constitutional rights.Parveen was arrested in 2020 along with two others under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act(MCOCA) for allegedly threatening and extorting money from Saddiq Shaikh over a financial dispute linked to smuggled gold. According to the FIR filed at Pydhonie police station, Parveen and his associate, police informer Salim Maharaj, summoned Shaikh and his partner, assaulted them, and allegedly threatened them at gunpoint.Justice Milind Jadhav said that keeping Parveen behind bars for over five years without the conclusion of the trial amounted to “surrogate punishment,” violating his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.The court noted that the investigation was complete and a charge sheet was filed, but the trial made little headway, with five key prosecution witnesses still to be examined.The judge also cited the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the pace of proceedings but held that even after accounting for this, the delay was inordinate and unjustified.The judge said the dire state of overcrowding in Mumbai’s jails, stating that barracks sanctioned for 50 inmates are currently housing between 220 and 250 prisoners. “Prisons are overcrowded, and courts are obligated to safeguard the liberty of undertrial prisoners when trials stretch into perpetuity,” the court observed, reaffirming that in such cases, “bail is the rule, and refusal is the exception.”Quoting several Supreme Court rulings, the High Court stressed that undertrial prisoners often suffer irreversible personal, social, and financial harm during prolonged detentions, with no provision for compensation if ultimately acquitted.Opposing the bail plea, additional public prosecutor Mahalaxmi Ganapathy argued that Parveen was the principal accused with serious criminal antecedents, and his release could lead to witness tampering, evidence destruction, and a resumption of his alleged illegal activities. She also warned that Parveen’s release could pose threats to the ongoing trial and the safety of the complainant.