N. J. JAMADAR
Babu – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
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 an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.