The court ruled that the stringent standards for bail under the MCOC Act must be met, confirming that repeat offenders are disqualified from bail absent exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By this bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.750 of 2023 registered at Bandra Police Station, Mumbai. The offences alleged against the applicant are punishable under Sections 392 and 379 read with Section 3(4) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, and also under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "MCOC Act").

2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 15th May 2023 at about 8:45 p.m., when the complainant was walking on the road while talking on his mobile phone, some persons came from behind, snatched the mobile phone, slapped the complainant, and ran away towards Station Road. The complainant tried to chase them but could not apprehend them. A complaint was filed, investigation commenced, and the accused persons were arrested on the same night. The stolen mobile phone was recovered, and it was allegedly shown to the accused. The complainant later identified the accused, who were shown as arrested. Initially, the present applicant was released on bail.

3. However, on 1st August 2023, the prosecution filed an application for cancellation of bail and also prayed for addition of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the MCOC Act. The learned Magistrate rejected this application on 7th August 2023. Thereafter, the prosecution preferred a Revision Application, which was allowed by the Sessions Court on 18th October 2023, and the applicant was re-arrested on 13th November 2023.

4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has raised several contentions. She submitted that the Sanctioning Authority, while granting sanction under Section 23 of the MCOC Act, has not properly examined whether the essential requirements for invoking the MCOC Act were satisfied. She pointed out that the applicant was earlier granted bail in a case under Section 392 of IPC, which forms the basis for the invocation of MCOC Act. She contended that only three common offences are shown along with co-accused, which attract a punishment of more than three years, and that too are of a petty nature. A plain reading of the FIR, according to her, does not disclose the ingredients of Section 392 IPC. She further contended that chain snatching is not covered under Section 392 IPC, unlike the newly introduced provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

5. She also submitted that the permission granted by the Sessions Court to arrest the applicant, after invocation of the MCOC Act, is unsupported by reasons, and hence, legally unsustainable. Relying upon Section 21(5) of the MCOC Act, she submitted that the words “or under any other act” in Section 21(5) are held unconstitutional, and therefore, the said provision is not applicable in the present case. She also relied on Section 21(7) of the Act and submitted that reasons must be recorded for the arrest of an accused who is already released on bail, which has not been done in the present case. According to her, the Sessions Court has mechanically permitted the arrest of the applicant, without assigning valid reasons, even though he was on bail.

6. Learned Advocate for the applicant further relied upon the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.165 of 2017, wherein the Sessions Court’s order was set aside on the ground that the Investigating Agency had failed to place on record any material to justify the necessity of custodial interrogation,