IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Pinki Irani - Appellant
Versus
Govt Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1127 of 2023
Decided On : 20-10-2023
MCOCA - Bail Application - Sections 170/384/386/388/419/420/506/186/353/463/471/120-B of IPC, 66-D Information Technology Act, Section 3 & 4 of MCOC Act, 1999 - The court discussed the legal provisions of MCOCA and its strict interpretation, the conditions for granting bail under MCOCA, and the necessity to evaluate the prima facie case. The court also highlighted the importance of mens rea in the commission of the offence under MCOCA.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons impersonated as Government Officers and extorted money from the complainant to the tune of Rs. 217 Crores on multiple occasions. The accused also allegedly diverted part of the crime proceeds to Bollywood celebrities and roped in the applicant to facilitate contact with them. The applicant was alleged to have received proceeds of crime and was accused of being an active member of the Organized Crime Syndicate.
Finding of the Court:
The court evaluated the evidence against the applicant and considered the conditions for granting bail under MCOCA. It found that the allegations needed to be tested during the trial to meet the requisite of MCOCA and that the court at the stage of bail has only to see the prima facie case. The court considered the totality of the facts and circumstances and granted bail to the applicant with specific conditions.
Issues: The court evaluated the evidence against the applicant, the necessity to meet the requisite of MCOCA, and the conditions for granting bail under MCOCA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the prima facie case, the necessity to meet the requisite of MCOCA, and the conditions for granting bail under MCOCA. It also highlighted the importance of mens rea in the commission of the offence under MCOCA.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant with specific conditions, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. - The present bail application has been filed seeking bail in case FIR No. 208/2021 dated 07.08.2021 registered under Sections 170/384/386/388/419/420/506/186/353/463/471/120-B of IPC, 66-D Information Technology Act, Section 3 & 4 of MCOC Act, 1999 registered at PS Special Cell.
2. Briefly stated that the case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2020 complainant Ms. Aditi S. Singh received a call from a landline number on her mobile phone in which the caller introduced himself as a senior officer in the Ministry of Law and proposed to help her in resolving the legal matters related to her husband and her companies. The person demanded a sum of Rs. 20 Crores for getting the work done and conveyed the modalities regarding the delivery of money. Thereafter, allegedly, the caller through his associates extorted money from her on multiple occasions. It has been alleged that the accused persons hatched a conspiracy by impersonating as Government Officers of the highest ranks and extorted money from the complainant to the tune of Rs. 217 Crores on multiple occasions.
3. Further, the complainant alleged that she received a call to deliver Rs.1 Crore on 07.08.2021. On the information provided by the complainant, a trap was laid and accused Pradeep Ramdani, who came in a Hyundai I-20 car No. HR-26 BC 4740 was caught redhanded while receiving the amount of Rs. 1 Crore from the complainant. Pradeep Ramnani said that he collected the money on the instructions of his brother Deepak Ramnani. At the instance of Pradeep Ramnani, his brother Deepak Ramnani was also arrested in this case. Their interrogation further led to the alleged mastermind Sukesh Chander Sekhar, who had allegedly roped them in to collect the payment from the complainant. Sukesh Chander Shekhar was lodged in Rohini Jail as UTP in the case of allegedly taking money from AIADMK leader T.T.V. Dinakaran on the pretext of helping him to retain the "two leaves" symbol for his party. On the intervening night of 07/08.08.2021 raid was carried out by Special Cell at Cell No. 204, Ward No. 3 of Jail No. 10, Rohini Jail, and two mobile phones were recovered from the possession of Sukesh Chander Sekhar. He was arrested in the present case. Further, the interrogations of the accused led to the identification of their associates and co-conspirators, and in total, 20 persons (except the present one) were arrested in the present case.
4. During the investigation, allegedly it transpired that accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar diverted part of the crime proceeds to the Bollywood celebrities in the shape of gifts. Investigation also revealed that accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar roped in applicant i.e., Ms. Pinky Irani, who is based in Mumbai to facilitate him to get in touch with various Bollywood celebrities. Allegedly, the examination/interrogation of various Bollywood celebrities such as Nora Fatehi, Jaqueline Fernandez, Leepkashi Elhawaidi, Mehboob Khan, Prashant Gunjalkar, Sophia Singh, Shaan Muthathil, Nikita Tamboli, Chahat Khanna revealed the facts and the role played by Pinky Irani. As per the prosecution case total of Rs.217 crores were extorted on different occasions. It has also been alleged that Accused Pinky Irani received an amount of Rs.74,60,000/- in her bank accounts from various bank accounts at the instance of the accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar which is allegedly Proceeds of Crime. It is a matter of record that the accused/applicant Pinky Irani has already been granted bail in the ED matter vide order dated 15.02.2022 by Ld. Trial court.
5. The Learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.03.2023, dismissed the bail application of the applicant. The Ld. Trial Court inter-alia held that prima facie, conditions u/s 21(4) of the MCOC Act have not been fulfilled. Moreover, in the ED matter grant of bail to the accused/applicant was on account of her taking benefit of the proviso attached to Section 45 of the PML Act, whereas no such exempting proviso is att
Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka and Others
Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)
State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 171
State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty (2012) 10 SCC 561
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's decision emphasized the interpretation of MCOCA provisions and the satisfaction of bail conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA.
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) Offence under MCOCA must comprise continuing unlawful activity relating to organized crime undertaken by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of organized crime syndicate or on beh....
(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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.