The court ruled that the Special Court erred in denying Police Custody based on insufficient grounds, highlighting the necessity to investigate the respondent's continuous involvement in organized crime.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

Heard.

2. Admit.

3. By this revision, the State is challenging the order of the Special Judge (MCOC Act) and District Judge, Nagpur-1 rejecting the application of the prosecution for seeking Police Custody Remand (“PCR”) of the respondent by granting ten days PCR of the respondent for the investigation purpose.

4. Complainant Pramod Morbaji Game on 14.03.2025, lodged the report alleging that on 14.03.2025 along with Rajkumar Game coming from Asti (Khurd) to Yerala at about about 06.30 p.m. on his motorcycle, at that time, the respondent Lalu Yadav and co-accused Ganesh Mondhe assaulted complainant with deadly weapon. Co- accused Ganesh caught hold complainant Pramod Game and the respondent inflicted the blow of sickle on Pramod Game due to this, he sustained grievous injury to his right fingers, lips, left hand and toot of the complainant was broken and they both have sustained the grievous injuries. Thereafter the accused fled away from this spot. On the basis of the said report, the Police have registered the crime vide Crime No. 194/2025. Initially, crime was registered under Sections 109, 118(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). During investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a proposal for application of the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (“MCOC Act”) and the same was allowed by the Special Inspector General of Police, Nagpur to apply the provisions of the MCOC Act and accordingly, the approval was granted. After receipt of the approval, on 03.05.2025, the Investigating Officer filed an application of obtaining the custody of the present respondent for the investigating purpose, however said application was rejected by the Special Court and hence, this revision.

5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State who submitted that during investigation, it revealed that the involvement of the present respondent is in continuous illegal activities and he is a member of Organised Crime Syndicate, therefore, the Investigating Officer approached to the Superior Authority for obtaining the approval under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act. The Competent Authority has considered the entire record and it reveals that in all nine offences are registered against the present respondent which are registered on an allegation that these offceces are committed by him for obtaining the pecuniary gain. The competent authority has also considered his continuous involvement in continuing unlawful activities and he has been charge-sheeted in eight different serious offences and therefore, approval was granted. After granting of the approval, it was necessary for the Investigating Officer to investigate as to his involvement being a member of the Organised Crime Syndicate and also to ascertain whether he has obtained the pecuniary gain by committing such offences. Therefore, the application was made to the Special Court for grant of Police Custody, however, the Special Court has only considered that only ground raised by the Investigating Officer for Police Custody of accused that he wants to investigate whether any property is purchased by the accused or where there is any bank account in which money is deposited. Both the grounds are raised are not justifiable for PCR. This observation of the Special Court itself is erroneous as that was not the only ground raised in the application, but the other grounds were also raised by the Investigating Agency that the investigation as to his involvement in the continuing unlawful activities as well as whether his involvement in offences for ob