Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 11

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Jayshree Kanabar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15341 of 2023) With Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15820 of 2023)
Decided on : 02-01-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Aren, Adv. Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail – When there is embargo put in by a specific provision under a special enactment in the matter of grant of bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to satisfaction of conditions mentioned in such specific provision.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 439(2) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483(3)] – Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 – Section 21(4) – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – When there is embargo put in by a specific provision under a special enactment in the matter of grant of bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to satisfaction of conditions mentioned in such specific provision – Since MCOCA is involved in this case on hand, accused/respondents could not have sought for bail in exercise of discretion available under Section 439, Cr.P.C., in the matter, in view of rigours under Section 21(4) of MCOCA – Materials collected during investigation would not mature into evidence at the stage of consideration of appeal and as such, admissibility and evidentiary value are matters to be decided during trial and are not matters for consideration at present stage of proceedings – High Court had transgressed into impermissible area inasmuch as question of sufficiency or otherwise and correctness of prosecution case were considered while passing impugned order instead of confining consideration in regard to question of satisfaction or otherwise of stringent conditions in the matter of grant of bail where offences under MCOCA are involved – Impugned order set aside and Criminal Bail Application restored into file of High Court in its original number to be considered afresh in accordance with law. (Paras 6, 7 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Crime was registered for offences punishable under Sections 320, 120B, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. As per impugned order, accused Nos.2 and 3 were granted bail in said case. Manifold contentions have been raised to challenge the grant.
Findings of Court:
It is a fact that grant of bail was not in exercise of power of High Court as a Constitutional Court on the ground of violation of Part-III of the Constitution. It is also a fact that the case on hand involves allegation of commission of offences of murder punishable under Section 302, IPC.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The widow of the victim in MCOCA No.274/2021 arising out of Crime No.413/2020 registered at Bundgarden Police Station, Pune against respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, who are respectively accused Nos.2 and 3 therein, filed this Special Leave Petition against the order dated 06.11.2023 in Criminal Bail Application No.2164/2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The said crime was registered for offences punishable under Sections 320, 120B, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the MCOCA’). As per the impugned order, accused Nos.2 and 3 were granted bail in the said case. Manifold contentions have been raised to challenge the grant. Before delving into them, compendiously, we will refer to the prosecution’s case which led to the case on hand.

3. There was a long-drawn civil dispute between the deceased Rajesh Haridas Kanabar on one side and families of respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other over certain extent of land comprised in Gat No.348 situated at Bavdhan in Pune. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, appointed accused No.3 as their agent to take care of their legal matter and other issues relating to the aforesaid property. Though, a settlement was seemingly arrived at, the accused were under the impression that the deceased was not favourably responding to the settlement. On 05.10.2020, the revenue proceeding, which is an off-shoot of the civil dispute, was listed before the Collector of Pune. The accused, as also the deceased attended the proceedings. On coming out of the office of the Collector, when the deceased was purchasing fruits near the gate of State Bank of India at about 2:45 pm, accused No.4 viz., one Hasmukh Patel shot him with a country made pistol. The informant Sri Vishwas Dayanand Gangavane carried him to a nearby hospital where he was declared dead. Initially, charge sheet was filed against the accused sans accusation of commission of offences under MCOCA. However, a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 03.04.2021 whereunder offences under MCOCA were also inserted against them alleging that accused Nos.1 to 4 are members of the Organised Crime Syndicate of which accused No.4 is the gang leader and based on the conspiracy hatched between them, they killed Rajesh Kanabar to have unlawful gains.

4. It is the core contention of the appellant that a bare perusal of the impugned order itself would bring home the fact that the order granting bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.1 and 2 in the MCOCA case) is an outcome of consideration akin to a mini-trial. Instances of observations, partaking the character of findings on the merits of the case, have been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. It is further contention made on behalf of the appellant that though there was an irrecusable duty on the Court to consider whether the twin conditions to be satisfied in terms of Section 21 (4) of MCOCA the Court transgressed into impermissible area, ignoring the fact that it was only considering an application for bail and made appreciation of the materials on record and arrived at findings that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had not played any role in the incident of shooting, that there is no evidence, even to suggest that respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 2 were directly or indirectly in contact with accused No.4, the gang leader and that a perusal of the evidence would indicate that accused No.3 was directly in contact with accused No.4, the gang leader and other members of the Crime Syndicate. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that it is such highly improper and impermissible manner of consideration that culminated in the impugned or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document