The conscious involvement in illegal activities of an organized crime syndicate, the seriousness of forging passports, and the potential threat to national and international security were central legal points established in the judgment.

Manmohan, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in FIR No. 71/2009 registered with Police Station Special Cell under Section 3 of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'MCOCA') as well as Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC and Section 12 of The Passports Act, 1967.

2. Mr. Majeed Memon, learned senior counsel for petitioner stated that though the petitioner was initially named in eleven cases, as of today she is involved in only four FIRs, namely :-

(i) FIR No. 132/2002 registered with Police Station Defence Colony under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC.

(ii) FIR No. 160/2007 registered at Karnal under Sections 420/406/ 407/468/120B IPC.

(iii) FIR No. 79/2006 registered at Pehowa, Kurukshetra, Haryana under Sections 420/406 IPC.

(iv) FIR No. 263/2008 under Sections 420/406/506 IPC read with Section 12 of the Passports Act.

3. Mr. Memon further stated that the seven cases in which petitioner was an accused had either been settled or compounded or resulted in acquittal and even in the remaining four cases, she had been granted bail.

4. Mr. Memon pointed out that accused/petitioner had not been charged with any offence of money laundering or any serious crime. He pointed out that petitioner’s husband, who is a travel agent, had only been accused of issuing fake visas and of giving false assurances of employment abroad.

5. Mr. Memon contended that none of the cases in which the petitioner had been charged would fall within the definition of 'organised crime' under MCOCA. According to him, accusations against the petitioner were neither grave nor serious. Since Mr. Memon laid considerable emphasis on paras 21 to 24 of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2005) 5 SCC 294, the same are reproduced herein below:-

“21. MCOCA was enacted to make special provisions for prevention and control of, and for coping with, criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the said Act are as under:

"Organised crime has for quite some years now come up as a very serious threat to our society. It knows no national boundaries and is fuelled by illegal wealth generated by contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc. The illegal wealth and black money generated by the organized crime being very huge, it has had serious adverse effect on our economy. It was seen that the organized criminal syndicates made a common cause with terrorist gangs and foster terrorism which extend beyond the national boundaries. There was reason to believe that organized criminal gangs have been operating in the State and, thus, there was immediate need to curb their activities.

It was also noticed that the organized criminals have been making extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent their commission would be an indispensable aid to law enforcement and the administration of justice.

2. The existing legal framework i.e. the penal and procedural laws and the adjudicatory system were found to be rather inadequate to curb or control the menace of organized crime. Government, therefore, decided to enact a special law with stringent and deterrent provisions including in certain circumstances power to intercept wire, electronic or oral communication to control the menace of the organized crime. It is the purpose of this act to achieve these objects."

Section 2 is the interpretation clause. Section 2(1)(a), (d), (e) and (f) whereof read thus:

"2.(1) In this act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) “abet?, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes,-

(i) the communication or association with any person wit