Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Kamlesh Kothari – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. – Respondents
Bail Appln. 4262 of 2021, Bail Appln. 1170 of 2022 and Bail Appln. 3706 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) Continuing unlawful activity and nexus with an organised crime syndicate can justify MCOCA invocation; Section 2(d) defines continuing unlawful activity; Section 2(e) defines organised crime. (!) (!) - (!) (!) Supreme Court and Bombay High Court jurisprudence held that for Section 2(1)(d) the nexus to the syndicate is key and that multiple chargesheets against the syndicate suffice; individual chargesheets against every member are not required. (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) Confession under Section 18 can be admissible against co-accused; weight and validity are trial-stage matters; procedural defects in 18(3) certificates are not determinative at bail. (!) (!) - (!) (!) Sanction under Sections 23(1)(a) and 23(2) can be examined at trial; initial orders need not list all members; Section 21(4) bail standard requires reasonable grounds not guilt, on a higher threshold than prima facie. (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) Bail applications of Leena Paulose, B. Mohan Raj and Kamlesh Kothari denied on these grounds. (!) (!) - (!) (!) Linkage of individual roles to the syndicate can justify liability under MCOCA even if roles differ; membership/nexus suffices per case law. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and case details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argument of the defense regarding lack of evidence. (Para 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 30) |
| 3. court’s analysis of evidence and application of mcoca. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 75 , 76) |
| 4. legal requirements for establishing organized crime. (Para 39 , 42 , 44) |
| 5. conclusion: bail applications rejected. (Para 78 , 79) |
JUDGMENT
| S.No | Particulars | Para Nos. |
| 1. | Factual Matrix | 1 to 11 |
| 2. | Submissions on behalf of Petitioners (i) B.Mohan Raj (ii) Kamlesh Kothari (iii) Leena Paulose | 12-17 18-25 26-29, |
| 3. | Submissions on behalf of State/Respondent | 30-34 |
| 4. | Findings and Conclusion | 35-79 |
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Factual Matrix
1. The present order shall dispose of the bail application no. 4262/2021 of Kamlesh Kothari, Bail Application No. of B.Mohanraj and Bail Application No. Of Leena Paulose. The bail application filed by Petitioner Kamlesh Kothari in case titled. "State v. Kamlesh Kothari" was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2021 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge. Similarly the bail application filed by Petitioner B.Mohan Raj in case titled "State v. Sukesh Chadrashekhar & Ors." was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2022 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge and the bail application filed by Petitioner Leena Paulose in case titled "State v. Sukesh Chadrashekhar & Ors." was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2022 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are:
i. The present FIR no.208/2021 has been registered under sections 170, 384, 386, 388, 419, 420, 406, 409, 506, 186, 353, 468, 471, 120-B IPC; section 66-D of IT Act and sections 3/4 MCOCA at PS Special cell, on the basis of complaint of Ms. Aditi S.Singh/Complainant alleging therein that on 15.06.2020 she received a call from one landline number on her mobile Imagephone in which the caller introduced himself as a senior officer in Ministry of Law and proposed to help her in securing bail for her husband who was running in Judicial Custody in cases related to M/s Religare Enterprises Ltd.
ii. It is alleged that the said caller demanded a sum of Rs.20 Crores from the complainant for getting the work done and conveyed the modalities regarding delivery of money. The caller further through his associates extorted money from complainant on multiple occasions. The extorted money was to the tune of Rs.214 Crores.
iii. On conducting technical surveillance of the cell phone which was used by said caller, the identity of the caller was found to be Sukash Chander Shekhar who was already lodged in Rohini Jail as UTP in the case of allegedly taking money from AIADMK leader TTV Dinakaran on the pretext of helping him retain `two leaves' symbol for his party.
iv. The complainant alleged that that she received a call to deliver Rs.1 Crores on 07.08.2021. On receipt of this information a trap was laid and accused Pradeep Ramdanee was caught red-handed while receiving the amount of Rs.1 Crore from the complainant. Accused Pradeep Ramdanee disclosed that he collected the money on the instructions of his brother Deepak Ramnani and at the instance of Pradeep Ramdanee, his brother-Deepak Ramnani was also arrested. Their interrogation led to the mastermind Sukesh Chander Shekar who had roped both of them to collect the extortion money from the complainant.
v. A raid was carried out in the intervening night of 07/08.08.2021 by Special Cell and two mobile phones were recovered from possession of accused Sukesh Chander Sekhar and he was arrested. The interrogation of the accused, Sukesh Chander Sekhar led to the identification and arrest of their associates and co-conspirators. During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused and his wife Leena Paulose were allegedly involved in running an organized crime syndicate with their associates since 2013 with the motive of pecuniary gain by cheating and extortion. It was further revealed that the accused Sukesh Chandra Sekhar is involved in several cases of attempt to mu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to strictly construe the provisions of MCOCA, establish the mens rea, and consider the length of the period spent in custody and the unlik....
The court affirmed that involvement in an organized crime syndicate justifies stringent bail denials, emphasized by the presence of multiple charges and confessions from co-accused.
The MCOC Act can be applied to individuals involved in organized crime based on their nexus with a crime syndicate, even if they are implicated in a single case, provided there is sufficient evidence....
The court ruled that the applicant's involvement in organized crime and conspiracy to commit murder, supported by substantial evidence, justified the rejection of bail under the MCOC Act.
(1) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of strict construction cannot be applied in an impracticable manner so as to render the statute itself nugatory.(2) Organised crime – Any person who is declared a....
The court's decision emphasized the interpretation of MCOCA provisions and the satisfaction of bail conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA.
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 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
