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 evidence linking the accused to the organized crime syndicate.

JUDGMENT :

1. The applicant is one of the 11 accused, who are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and subsequently by invoking stringent provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act (for short “MCOC Act”) by the DCB, CID vide C.R. No.11 of 2018, C.R. No.19 of 2019 and C.R. No.99 of 2015. Initially, an offence against the applicant and the rest of the accused came to be registered at Vikhroli Police Station vide C.R. No.509 of 2019 on 19.12.2019.

2. A few facts germane for disposal of this application can be summarized as follows.

3. The first informant, on 19.12.2019 after worshiping in the Sai Temple was sitting in the office of the temple. The accused no.4 – Sagar came into the office and opened a fire by means of a gun. The bullet fired from the gun pierced into his arm, resulting into a bleeding injury. However, the first informant along with his son apprehended the assailant on the spot. Subsequently, accused nos. 1 and 2 also came to be arrested on 24.12.2019.

4. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses came to be recorded, a memorandum panchanama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was also drawn and when it revealed that it was an act of an organized crime syndicate, prior approval of the competent officer was obtained under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act. Previous sanction came to be accorded by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai under Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act against the 10 accused.

5. After the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed. An application for bail preferred by the applicant in the trial Court came to be rejected on 31.03.2021. The second application also came to be rejected on 29.04.2022.

6. At the outset, Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the applicant in his elaborate arguments tried to demonstrate several lacunae in the prosecutions case indicating how the applicant has been implicated falsely on the basis of concocted material sans any nexus either direct or indirect in the commission of the offence as well as a member of an organized crime syndicate. Mr. Deshpande would argue that the First Information Report came to be lodged against an unknown person and, subsequently, the Investigating Agency had falsely shown his presence on the spot, when in fact, he is neither an assailant nor was present at the scene on the date of incident. Mr. Deshpande would further argue that neither test identification parade has been conducted nor there is any witness who had indicated complicity of the applicant in the said crime.

7. The only material, according to the learned Counsel, putforth by the prosecution is in the form of confessional statement of a co-accused and nothing else. The Court below had rejected his application for bail only on the premise that he had been named by a co-accused in his confessional statement. The prosecution has not shown that the applicant had indulged in continuing unlawful activities nor there is any shred of evidence to show that he is a member of an organized crime syndicate or even for that matter, acted on behalf of such syndicate.

8. The Counsel has also questioned the previous sanction granted by the Commissioner of Police, inasmuch as the kingpin of the organized crime syndicate namely, Prasad Pujari, who is said to have been chargesheeted with more than two charge-sheets namely; DCB, CID vide C.R. No.11 of 2018, C.R. No.19 of 2019 and C.R. No.99 of 2015 do not indicate in what manner and under which offences he was involved in continuing unlawful activities. There is no material indicating the involvement of the applicant in the organized crime syndicate of Prasad Pujari.

9. Mr. Palkar, learned APP while strongly objecting release of the applicant on bail, submits that the applicant is a member of an organized crime syndicate who had indulged in continuing unlawful activities which is evident from his role in provi