Back
2007(4) Supreme 735
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., D.K. Jain, J.
Dattatray Krishnaji Ghule
— Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
— Respondents
Appeal (Crl.) 183 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Cr.) No. 4600 of 2006)
With
Appeal (Crl.) 184 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Cr.) No. 4603 of 2006)
Decided on : 09-02-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Adv., Naresh Kaushik, B.S. Methaila, Ms. Amita Kalkal and Anish Dhingra (for Mrs. Lalita Kaushik) Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Ranjana Narayan, P. Parmeswaran and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.
Held : At this juncture, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to return a positive finding as to whether or not the appellants have committed offences they have been charged with. However, as the provisions of MCOCA have been invoked in the instant cases, in addition to the considerations, which normally weigh with the court in granting bail in non-bailable offences, the limitations imposed in the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of MCOCA have to be borne in mind. The said provision came up for consideration before this Court recently in Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. and its scope and purport was explained thus:
“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 11)
Held : Thus, in the light of what has been said above, what needs to be considered is whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that the appellants are not guilty of the two offences, they have been charged with and further that they are not likely to commit an offence under MCOCA while on bail.
(Para 12)
Held : Having considered the matter in the light of the roles attributed to the appellants in the charge-sheet, we are of the view that the allegations, briefly enumerated above, may not per se be sufficient to bring home an offence falling within the ambit of Section 3(2) of MCOCA. Therefore, bearing in mind the fact that maximum punishment provided under Section 24 of MCOCA is three years rigorous imprisonment and the appellants have already been in judicial custody for over two years, in our view it is a fit case for grant of bail to both the appellants.
(Para 13)
Judgment
D.K. JAIN, J.—
Leave granted.
2.The challenge in these two appeals is to a common Order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, rejecting the bail applications preferred by the appellants.
3.The appellants having been arrested in connection with the same case (C.R. No. 131 of 2001), registered at Thane Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 217, 218, 263(a) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and Section 34 of the Maharashra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “MCOCA”), common questions arise for consideration and therefore, both the appeals are being disposed by this judgment. At the relevant time both the appellants were police officers, in-charge of investigations in the aforementioned case. Both of them were arrested on 8th October, 2004.
4.The case of the prosecution against the appellants, in brief, is as under :
5.On 16th May, 2005 appellant P.S.I Hitendra Manohar Vichare (hereinafter referred to as Vichare) arrested one Sandeep Kandar and fake stamps worth Rs.51,000/- were seized. On the same day C.R. No. 131 of 2001 was registered. Vichare investigated the case from 16th May, 2001 to 22nd May, 2001. Appellant P.I. Dattatray Krishnaji Ghule (hereinafter referred to as Ghule) took over investigations in the said case on 22nd May, 2001. On 23rd May, 2001 one Maruti Car was intercepted and a huge quantity of fake stamps was seized from the occupants of the car. Ghule was in-charge of the investigations from 22nd May, 2001 to 26th December, 2001. As a result of investigations, three charge-sheets were filed against several persons, including one Shabbir Sheikh and Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi, head of an organised crime syndicate, engaged in unlawful activities relating to printing of counterfeit stamps and other documents and sale thereof. However, subsequently, under the orders of this Court, investigations in the case were transferred to the C.B.I. and the provisions of MCOCA were invoked. As a result of fresh investigations by the C.B.I. cases were registered against the appellants under the aforementioned provisions and they were arrested on 8th October, 2004.
6.The main allegations against the appellants in the charge-sheet filed by the C.B.I., inter-alia, are: despite having come to know about the illegal activities of said Shabbir Sheikh, Vichare did not arrest him and conspired with Ghule to aid and abet the organised crime syndicate headed by Telgi to carry on their illegal activities; he neither carried out search at the offices of Telgi nor did he seal his property; Ghule took over investigation with the intention to extract pecuniary benefits for himself; both of them did not seal the premises belonging to Telgi with an ulterior motive to aid and abet the organised crime syndicate; they deliberately framed two persons of the rival gang on the instructions of said Shabbir; they showed false recovery from one Sandeep Kandar; recorded statement in order to implicate him; registered a false complaint (C.R. No. 131/2001) against him and also destroyed/fabricated evidence by entering into criminal conspiracy with the members of Telgi gang by misusing their official position.
7.Taking these circumstances into consideration, as noted above, the learned Single Judge has rejected application for bail preferred by the appellants.
8.We have heard Mr. T.L.V. Iyer and Mr. Arvind Sawant, learned senior counsel respectively on behalf of Ghule and Vichare and Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel on behalf of the C.B.I.
9.Learned senior counsel for the appellants have submitted that no inference can be drawn on the basis of the material on record, referred to in the impugned order that the appellants had conspired or abetted commission or facilitation of the crime with which Telgi or other co-accused were associated. It is asserted that in the charge-sheet filed against the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
