Back
M.R.SHAH, SANJIV KHANNA
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Jagshi Gangar – Respondent
What is the proper remedy when a High Court diverts to interim bail in a grave MCOCA offence—whether such interim relief can be granted and under what criteria? What are the correct criteria and scope for quashing a wrongful bail order and canceling bail where interim relief has improperly released an accused, and how does this relate to forum shopping and prior sanctions? What is the propriety of releasing an accused on interim bail in MCOCA cases where a charge sheet has been filed and sanctions/approvals are challenged or found defective?
Key Points: - The High Court’s interim bail in a grave MCOCA offence was held improper; such interim relief cannot substitute final relief and requires quashing the bail order and directing surrender (!) (!) . - Quashing and setting aside a wrong bail order and cancelling bail for misuse of liberty are distinct remedies with different criteria; interim relief cannot exonerate MCOCA offences at that stage (!) (!) . - The decision reiter emphasizes forum shopping: releasing on interim relief after withdrawal of a bail application before Single Judge is improper and cannot be approved (!) (!) (!) . - The Court cited Neeharika Infrastructure and Neeharika decisions establishing that interim bail cannot be used to effectively acquit or grant final relief; such interim relief must be avoided in MCOCA contexts (!) . - The State’s appeal succeeds; the impugned order releasing on bail is quashed and the respondent must surrender to face trial (!) . - The judgment highlights that gravity of offences and existence of charge sheet and MCOCA invocation require cautious handling; interim bail cannot set aside sanction or prior approval at an interim stage (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4639 of 2018 by which the Division Bench by way of an interim relief directed the respondent herein – accused be released on bail in Special MCOC No.24 of 2017 arising out of C.R. No.I-190 of 2017, registered with Kasarvadavli Police Station, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present is a glaring example of fourm shopping by the accused which cannot be approved at all. The facts speak for itself, which are as under :-
2.1 That an FIR was registered as C.R. No.I-190 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 384, 386, 387 read with Section 34 of the IPC against three named accused persons namely Iqbal Ibrahim Kaskar, Israr Jamil Sayyed and Mumtaz Ejaj Shaikh @ Raju. The case on behalf of the prosecution has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the learned Special Judge (MCOC), Thane, in his order dated 26.03.2018, passed below Exh. 15 in MCOC No.24 of 2017, by which the learned Special Judge rejected
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
