9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 1157 - SC - Indian LawsWhether in the light of the allegations made and materials placed by the prosecution the High Court was justified in granting bail particularly in the light of restriction imposed u/s 21(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 ( MCOCA) - HELD THAT - the Respondent is having an association with the overseas base wanted accused. It also indicates that the Respondent knowingly handled the funds of the syndicate. The statement of one of the witnesses indicates that the Respondent had asked the said witness to collect a sum from the co-accused however the same was not materialized. In addition to the same there is a statement of co-accused that he collected 15 lakhs from co-accused - Dattatray Bhakare and delivered it to the Respondent. The confessional statement further indicates that the wanted accused used to make calls using cell phone to the Respondent. The confessional statement also reveals that Accused No. 6 received 6 lakhs from the man of the Respondent - prima facie the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 4 of MCOCA attracts against the Respondent - accused. Considering the facts particularly in the light of the bar u/s 21(4) of MCOCA the Special Court rightly rejected the application for bail filed by the Respondent herein. Accordingly the impugned order of the High Court in Criminal Bail Application granting bail to the Respondent is set aside and the order of the special Judge is restored. In view of the same the Respondent is directed to surrender before the Special Court within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of this order failing which the special Court is directed to take appropriate steps for his arrest. The appeal of State of Maharashtra is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). 2. Analysis of the evidence and materials presented by the prosecution. 3. Interpretation and application of Section 21(4) of MCOCA and its comparison with similar provisions in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the High Court's Decision to Grant Bail: The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent, particularly in light of the restrictions imposed under Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The Court emphasized that Section 21(4) mandates that no person accused of an offence under MCOCA shall be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to appreciate the materials placed against the respondent and did not satisfy the twin conditions required under Section 21(4) of MCOCA. 2. Analysis of Evidence and Materials by the Prosecution: The prosecution alleged that the respondent was an active member of an "organised crime syndicate" and was involved in managing funds for the syndicate. The evidence included the confessional statements of co-accused, which indicated that the respondent handled money transactions related to the murder of Farid Tanasha. The Special Court had rejected the bail application based on these materials, finding that the respondent had a significant role in the crime syndicate. The Supreme Court agreed with the Special Court's assessment, noting that the respondent's actions prima facie fell within the definition of 'abet' under Section 2(1)(a) of MCOCA. 3. Interpretation and Application of Section 21(4) of MCOCA: The Supreme Court referred to the provisions of Section 21(4) of MCOCA, which are similar to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Both statutes impose stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court reiterated that these conditions are cumulative and must be satisfied based on substantial probable causes. The Supreme Court cited previous judgments, including Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, to emphasize that the satisfaction of the court regarding the accused's non-guilt must be based on reasonable grounds, which are more than prima facie grounds. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent was erroneous as it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Special Judge rejecting the bail application was restored. The respondent was directed to surrender before the Special Court within two weeks, failing which appropriate steps for his arrest were to be taken. Final Judgment: The appeal of the State of Maharashtra was allowed, and the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent was overturned.
|
