The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of more than one chargesheet to invoke MCOCA and the factors for granting bail under Section 21(4) of MCOCA.

JUDGMENT :

BRIJESH SETHI, J.

1. The Petitioner herein, Digvijay Saroha has preferred the present bail application seeking regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) read with Section 12 & 21(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) in case FIR No. 252/2018, P.S. Alipur under sections 3 & 4 of MCOCA titled State v. Digvijay Saroha & Ors. pending adjudication before Ld. ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that the petitioner who is facing trial under section 3 and 4 of MCOC Act and has been in judicial custody since 24.06.2018. He had filed an application seeking bail before Ld. Trial Court and vide order dated 07.06.2019, the Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegations against the petitioner are totally false and frivolous. He is shown to be a member of the Jitender @ Gogi Syndicate. Whereas he is an accused only in one FIR bearing no. 401/14, u/s. 307/34 IPC, PS Alipur and on the basis of the said FIR, the prosecution is claiming him to be a member of the Jitender @ Gogi syndicate. Minimum two FIRs are required to have been registered against the petitioner to invoke MCOCA. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that essential ingredients of Sec. 2(d) of MCOCA are not made out. It is further argued that even requirement of Section 23 (1) (a) of the MCOC Act was not complied with as no document was sent to the Competent Authority while seeking approval under the said Act.

3. XXX XXX XXX XXX

4. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that prosecution in its proposal had not placed any copy of the chargesheet which they are alleging to be that of a crime syndicate. At the time when the proposal was sent, there was no evidence with the investigating officer to show that there were some proceeds of crime from the offences committed by the petitioner. There was no evidence before Sanctioning Authority to come to the conclusion that petitioner is a member of crime syndicate.

5. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel that on the date of commission of offence, the ingredients of Section 3 of MCOCA were not made out. The petitioner is not involved in continuing unlawful activity and as per Section 2 (d) of MCOCA, more than one chargesheet should have been filed against the petitioner within the preceding period of 10 years. Whereas, only one chargesheet is pending against him. Thus, prima facie there was no justification to invoke the provisions of MCOCA.

6. It is lastly submitted by Ld. Counsel that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that statement of Ms. Nikita Dahiya recorded u/s. 161 CrPC was not placed before the sanctioning authority and in view of irregularities and infirmities in the prosecution version, the petitioner be released on bail, in the interest of justice.

7. In support of his argument, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following judgments;

i. State v. Satya Prakash [Crl. M. C. No. 2138 of 2010 of Delhi High Court].

ii. Altaf Ismail v. State, (2005) 1 BCR(Cri) 833.

iii. Maharashtra v. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal, (2007) 2 SCC(Cri) 241.

iv. Pankaj Jagshi Gangar v. State of Maharashtra, Cr.W.P. No. 4639/2018.

v. Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & anr.

vi. Mahipal Singh v. CBI, (2014) 11 SCC 282.

8. The Bail Application is vehemently opposed by the State. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. G. M. Farooqi, submitted that offences alleged against the accused are serious in nature. He further submitted that complete material was present before the approving authority while taking approval u/s. 23(1) & 23(2) of the MCOCA. Ld. APP has further submitted that there is sufficient material on record to show that petitioner Digvijay Saroha was member of crime