2006 (12) TMI 579 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the second bail application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations against the appellant involving organized crime and abetment under MCOCA.
3. Considerations for granting bail under MCOCA and general principles.

Summary:

1. Rejection of the second bail application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The appellant's second bail application was rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The appellant, an Advocate and former Minister in Andhra Pradesh, was implicated in a case involving organized crime. The High Court concluded that there was prima facie material on record indicating the appellant's knowledge and involvement in the organized crime syndicate led by Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi.

2. Allegations against the appellant involving organized crime and abetment under MCOCA:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant was involved in the kidnapping of Telgi's employees and demanded a ransom of Rs. 2 crores, leading to a closer association with Telgi. The appellant was accused of providing protection to Telgi's counterfeit stamp operations in Andhra Pradesh, receiving substantial sums in return. The appellant was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Bombay Stamps Act, and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act (MCOCA).

3. Considerations for granting bail under MCOCA and general principles:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the considerations for granting bail in non-bailable offenses include the nature and seriousness of the offense, character of the evidence, and the possibility of the accused tampering with witnesses or committing further offenses. Under MCOCA, additional limitations are imposed by Section 21(4), requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail. The Court noted that the alleged conversation between the appellant and Telgi might indicate acquaintance but was insufficient to prove direct involvement in organized crime. Given the appellant's role and the period of incarceration, the Supreme Court found it a fit case for granting bail.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and directed that the appellant be enlarged on bail with conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surrendering his passport. The observations made were tentative and not to be taken as final opinions on the merits of the case.