2006 Supreme(SC) 1264

2006(9) Supreme 560
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan and D.K. Jain, JJ.
Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav - Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1286 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1358 of 2006)
Decided on 8-12-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : U.U. Lalit, A.V. Savant, Sr. Advocates, Sanjay Sen, Rana S. Biswas, M. Roopender, Manish P.S. Chouhan, Vishal Anand, Ms. Ruchika Rathi, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Chinmoy Khaladkar, S.K. Nandy, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta, Brij Kishor Sah and Rahul Joshi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, P. Parmeswaran, D.S. Mahra, S.S. Shinde, Aniruddha P. Mayee and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Expression “reasonable grounds” in Section 21(4) of MACOCA means something more than prima facie grounds and it contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that accused is not guilty of alleged offence.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (MACOCA) - Sections 3, 21(4) and 24 - Offences of printing and distributing counterfeit stamps/papers on a very large scale were registered against an accused Telgi - Appellant-applicant, an elected Member of Legislative Assembly and Minister in State of Andhra Pradesh was alleged to have received huge amounts of money from time to time from Organised Crime Syndicate headed by Telgi and being an influential political person provided a protective umbrella to Organized Crime Syndicate in carrying unlawful activities in State of A.P. - Case registered against appellant was u/s 120B, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 263(A), 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476/34 IPC and u/s 3 and 24 of MACOCA and appellant was arrested on 6.9.2003 and was in judicial custody since then - Twin conditions to be satisfied before an accused could be considered entitled to bail in an offence under MACOCA - Reasonable belief contemplated in the provision required existence of such facts and circumstances as were sufficient to justify satisfaction that accused was not guilty of alleged offence - Question whether there was a reasonable ground for believing that appellant was not guilty of two offences - Circumstance for believing appellant’s involvement was the alleged conversation between appellant and Telgi found recorded in a micro audio cassette - Alleged conversation might show appellant’s acquintance with Telgi but not per se might be sufficient to prove appellant’s direct role with commission of organized crime by Telgi to bring home offence u/s 3(2) of MACOCA - Fit case for grant of bail to appellant.

       Held : However, as the provisions of MCOCA have been invoked in the instant case in addition to the afore-mentioned broad principles, the limitations imposed in the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of MCOCA cannot be lost sight of while dealing with the application for grant of bail. (Para 12)

       It is plain from a bare reading of the non-obstante clause in the sub-section that the power to grant bail by the High Court or Court of Sessions is not only subject to the limitations imposed by Section 439 of the Code but is also subject to the limitations placed by Section 21(4) of MCOCA. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions are: the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provisions requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus, recording of findings under the said provision is a sine qua non for granting bail under MCOCA.(Para 13)

       At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the appellant has committed offences under Section 3(2) or Section 24 of MCOCA. What is to be seen is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the two offences, he has been charged with, and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under MCOCA while on bail. As noted above, the circumstance which has weighed with the High Court to conclude that the appellant had the knowledge of Organised Crime Syndicate of Telgi, printing fake stamps etc. and these were being sold under the protection of the appellant and hence he had abetted an organised crime, is the alleged conversation between him and Telgi in January, 1998, after the kidnapping incident. In our view, the alleged conversation may show appellants acquaintance with Telgi but may not per se be sufficient to prove appellants direct role with the commission of an organized crime by Telgi, to bring home an offence of abetment in the commission of organized crime falling within the ambit of Section 3(2) of MCOCA and/or that he had rendered any help or support in the commission of an organized crime whether before or after the commission of such offence by a member of an organized crime syndicate or had abstained from taking lawful measures under MCOCA, thus, falling within the purview of Section 24 of MCOCA. It is true that when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or conjointly may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant of bail.(Para 16)

       Having regard to the afore-mentioned circumstances, particularly the role attributed to the appellant in the charge-sheet, we are of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant.(Para 17)