Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.Jamadar, J.
Babu – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 1600 of 2022
Decided On : 13-05-2022
MCOC Act - Temporary Bail - Sec. 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 34 of IPC, sec. 37(1) of Arms Act, sec. 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, Sec. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 4 of MCOC Act - The judgment discusses the restrictions imposed by sec. 21 of the MCOC Act, 1999 on the release of an accused, the interpretation of the provisions, and the application of humanitarian grounds for temporary bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought temporary bail to perform the last rites of his deceased mother. The Special Court rejected the application, citing the imminent threat to law and order. The applicant then approached the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considered the restrictions imposed by sec. 21 of the MCOC Act, 1999 and the previous judgments on similar cases. It acknowledged the humanitarian grounds but ultimately allowed the applicant to attend the last rites under police escort for two days.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of sec. 21 of the MCOC Act, 1999 and whether temporary bail could be granted on humanitarian grounds despite the statutory restrictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the requirements of sec. 21(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999 for granting bail, but also considered the humanitarian perspective in allowing the applicant to attend the last rites under police escort.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the application, granting the applicant permission to attend the last rites under police escort for two days.
Key Points: - The judgment analyzes the restrictions on bail under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and requires the Public Prosecutor to oppose, plus satisfaction of reasonable grounds of not guilty and not likely to commit an offence while on bail (!) (!) (!) . - It cites that interim/temporary bail is governed by the same stringent conditions as regular bail in MCOC cases, following Anil Umrao Gote and Sambhaji Kudale, with an emphasis that humanitarian grounds do not override statutory restrictions (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court may consider humanitarian grounds in appropriate circumstances to allow temporary attendance at last rites/rituals under police escort for a short duration, as distinguished from broad release on bail, particularly noting the case’s factual context (death anniversaries/rituals) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - In the present case, the Court partially allowed the application, permitting attendance at the last rites under police escort for two days (19/5/2022–20/5/2022) with police escort and state bearing escort expenses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment references precedents and three-judgeBench guidance in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma on the permissible scope of bail restrictions and the caution against unjustly broad interpretations (!) (!) (!) . - The decision distinguishes humanitarian considerations from a declaration that bail is granted on humanitarian grounds, emphasizing the need to adhere to statutory constraints while addressing emergent humanitarian needs (!) (!) (!) . - The order directs police escort and specific release/relodging times, with costs to be borne by the State (!) (!) (!) . - The case references earlier judgments denying or permitting temporary bail based on circumstances like illness or death of a family member, but ultimately grounds the decision in the MCOC Act framework (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It notes Covid-era considerations and prior video-conference arrangements as background, but focuses on current statutory interpretation for temporary relief (!) (!) . - The judgment lists participating advocates and the procedural posture of the bail application before the High Court (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant, who is arraigned in Special Case (MCOCA) No.120 of 2021, arising out of C.R.No. 1094 of 2020, registered with Faraskhana Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sec. 302, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code'), sec. 37(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, sec. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sec. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ('the MCOC Act, 1999), has preferred this application for grant of temporary bail for a period of 15 days to facilitate him to perform the rites and rituals of the deceased mother of the applicant.
2. The applicant is implicated as accused No.12 in abovenumbered C.R. No.1094 of 2020 lodged by Rahul Bhagwan Alamkhane, the son-in-law of Deepak Maratkar (the deceased). The deceased was a Social Worker. Since 15 years, there was a feud between Deepak Maratkar, on the one side, and Mahendra Saraf, Ashwini Kamble and Sunny Kolte, on the other side. Complaints and cross-complaints were lodged. On 2/10/2022, at about 12:15 a.m., on account of the previous enmity, Sunny Kolte, Sandeep Kolte, Rohit Kamble, Rahul Ragir and two others allegedly assaulted the deceased by means of deadly weapons and committed his murder, at the instance of Ashwini Kamble and Mahendra Saraf. Crime was registered at C.R. No. 1094 of 2020 with Faraskhana Police Station, Pune.
3. The applicant, who had been in custody in C.R. No.477 of 2015, registered with Kondhwa Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sec. 307, 387, 447, 504, and 506(2) read with 34 of the Penal Code, sec. 4(25) of the Arms Act, 1959, sec. 37 (1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and Sec. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the MCOC Act, 1999 since 8/5/2016, came to be also implicated as accused in C.R. No.1094 of 2020. Post completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been lodged leading to Special (MCOCA) Case No. 120 of 2021, which is pending on the fle of the learned Special Judge (MCOC), Pune.
4. The mother of the applicant Rani Prabhakar Nayar passed away on 1/6/2021. The applicant preferred applications for releasing him on temporary bail to perform the last rites. The application was rejected by the Special Court. The applicant preferred an application in this Court, being Bail Application Nos. 2091 of 2021 and 2092 of 2021.
5. By an order, dtd. 11/6/2021, this Court disposed of the applications with a direction to the Superintendent, Prison, to make arrangements to allow the interaction of the applicant with his family members, through video conferencing on 13/6/2021 and 16/6/2021, for a period of three hours. The Court was of the view that in the backdrop of the then prevalent Covid19 Pandemic situation, permission to visit the family, under police escort, was also fraught with risk to the persons accompanying the applicant and the inmates of the prison, where the applicant would be re-lodged.
6. The applicant preferred an application before the learned Special Judge (MCOCA) with a prayer to release him on temporary bail for a period of 15 days to perform the last rituals proposed to be held on the death anniversary of the mother of the applicant. The learned Special Judge (MCOCA) was persuaded to reject the application opining, inter-alia, that the release of the applicant even on temporary bail did not merit consideration in view of the imminent possibility of threat to law and order. The learned Special Judge, thus, partly allowed the application with direction to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Yerwada, Pune to allow the applicant to attend rituals in the wake of the frst death anniversary of the mother of the applicant on 19th and 20/5/2022 in between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. though video conference. The prayer to permit the applicant to participate in those rituals, under police escort, came to be rejected.
7. The applicant has, thus, approached this Court.
8. I have heard Mr.Priyal Sarda, t
The judgment establishes the importance of sec. 21 of the MCOC Act, 1999 in restricting the grant of bail, while also recognizing the humanitarian considerations in certain cases.
The court ruled that the applicant's involvement in organized crime and conspiracy to commit murder, supported by substantial evidence, justified the rejection of bail under the MCOC Act.
The main legal point established is the court's discretion to grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the MCOC Act, based on the constitutional right to a speedy trial and the lack of direct ....
Point of law : personal knowledge of the advocate of the applicant is being narrated in the affidavit to suggest the same to be the personal knowledge of the applicant.
(1) Offence under MCOCA must comprise continuing unlawful activity relating to organized crime undertaken by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of organized crime syndicate or on beh....
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and trials should not be delayed indefinitely, even in cases involving serious charges like human trafficking.
Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Bail granted - Clause (b) of section 21(4) of MCOC Act it becomes evident that it contains an interdict against grant of bail unless Court sa....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and trials under the MCOC Act must not delay other proceedings unless necessary.
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
