JUDGMENT :- Heard Advocate for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for State. The applicant is an accused in an offence registered under Sections 3(1), (i), (ii) as well as Section 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1999).

2. The main submission made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that when the Court considers the question of granting temporary bail in extraordinary circumstances, stringent requirements of Sub-Section 4 of section 21 of the said Act of 1999 will not apply. His submission is that the decision of the learned Single Judge reported in 2004 (11) LJSOFT (URC) page No.6: [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 350] (Anil Umrao Gote Vs. State of Maharashtra) needs reconsideration.

3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that even in a case where provisions of the said Act of 1999 are applicable, the Court retains power of granting temporary bail even in a case where requirements of sub section 4 of Section 21 are not satisfied. He placed reliance on order passed by the Apex Court dated 4th November, 2004 in the case of Ranjeetsing B. Sharma in SLP (Cri.) 3897 of 2004. He has also invited my attention to a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005(2) Crimes page 168 (SC): [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1538 (S.C.)] (Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another). He submitted that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court, there is no restriction on power of the Court to grant a temporary bail even in a case where the provisions of the said Act of 1999 have been applied. He has also invited my attention to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and submitted that in the case of the Applicant who was required to apply for temporary bail on the ground of demise of his brother, stringent provisions of Sub Section 4 of Section 21 cannot be applied.

4. The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant and submitted that law on this point is very clear which needs no reconsideration.

5. Before I deal with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant, it will be necessary to refer to the order dated 4th August, 2005 passed by this Court. Under the said order, the Applicant was permitted to attend to obsequies under a police escort. In view of the said order, now the requirement of releasing the Applicant on temporary bail does not subsist. However, I have dealt with the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Applicant.

6. It is necessary to make a reference to a decision of the learned Single Judge in case of Anil Gote, 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 350 (supra). After considering the various decisions of the Apex Court, including the decision reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. page no.922 (Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and others Vs. State of Gujrat) the learned Single Judge held that the Court is havingjurisdiction to release the accused on bail only on fulfilment of condition under Section 21(4) of the said Act of 1999.

7. The learned Single Judge held that the High Court or the Special Court cannot release an accused on interim bailor temporary bail if the requirements of Section 21(4) are not fulfilled. A view is also taken that when there is a specific provision under the statute, it is not open to the High Court to invoke power under Section 482 of the said Code.

8. A reference will have to be made to the order of the Apex Court dated 4th November, 2004 passed in case of Ranjeetsing Sharma. On plain reading of the order, it appears that the issue involved in this application was neither canvassed before the Apex Court nor decided by the Apex Court. It is well settled position that a Judgment is an authority for what it decides and it cannot be read as an authority for what follows from the Judgment. Therefore, reliance placed on the said order will not help the Applicant. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in case of Ranjitsing, [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1538 (S.C.)] (supra) considering the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document