MUMBAI, April 11 -- A special MCOCA court on Friday granted bail to two persons arrested for the 2011 triple bomb blasts in Mumbai, holding that prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial justify release at this stage, without examining the merits of the prosecution's case. The accused granted bail are Naquee Ahmed Wasi Ahmed Shaikh and Haroon Rashid Abdul Hameed Naik. The case arises from the coordinated serial blasts during evening rush hour on July 13, 2011. The explosions took place at Opera House, Zaveri Bazar and Dadar, killing 27 persons and injuring 127. Three FIRs registered at different police stations were transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and later consolidated, with the prosecution invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and filing a common chargesheet in 2012. The investigation expanded in December 2011, after inputs were received about suspicious youths from Darbhanga district in Bihar using SIM cards procured through fraudulent documents. This led to arrests between January and May 2012 and the development of a terror conspiracy in the case. The accused who have been granted bail have been in custody since then. Charges were framed against around a dozen accused only in September 2019, eight years after the initial arrests. Thereafter, despite directions for expeditious and day-to-day hearing, the prosecution has examined over 200 witnesses so far, while they say more than 100 witnesses are yet to be examined. The court has thus noted that it will take "considerable time" to complete the trial. The bail applications were argued primarily on grounds of prolonged incarceration and parity with a co-accused granted bail by the Bombay High Court. However, the court underlined the limited scope of its scrutiny. "The present applications are argued mainly on the ground of long incarceration. and not on merits of the case. Therefore the scrutiny is restricted to the aspect and not on merits," said Special Judge Satyanarayan R Navander, in his ruling. Opposing the bail pleas, the prosecution relied on the seriousness of the offence and the material collected during the investigation, including CCTV footage, scientific evidence, and confessional statements. It argued that delay could not be a ground for bail in a case involving organised crime and terror allegations. It also contended that such considerations fall within the domain of constitutional courts. The special MCOCA court rejected that submission, holding that trial courts are equally bound to enforce constitutional guarantees. It observed, "The provisions of Constitution are to be considered not only by the constitutional courts but by the trial court as well. The right to speedy trial of the accused has to be considered. not only in letter, but also in spirit." The court relied on the Bombay High Court's earlier order granting bail to a co-accused in the same case, which held that "prolonged incarceration, coupled with delay in trial, may in certain circumstances override statutory restrictions". It also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs KA Najeeb, which recognises that where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, continued detention may violate constitutional guarantees despite statutory embargoes on bail. Applying the principle of parity, the special court held that the applicants were "entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity", while expressly refraining from any assessment of the evidence or culpability....