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.

Headnote:(A) MCOC Act, 1999 - Sections 3 and 4 - Bail application - The accused seeks bail alleging false implication and lack of evidence against him; the State maintains that he is part of an active organized crime syndicate involved in heinous crimes, with charges substantiated by co-accused confessions. (Paras 1-52)

(B) Organized crime syndicates - Definition and criteria - The court finds sufficient evidence of organized crime activities based on multiple charge sheets against the syndicate, affecting bail considerations. (Paras 12, 32, 40)

Facts of the case:
The accused has been in custody since 02-09-2019, linked to an organized crime syndicate led by a notorious gang leader, involved in extortion and violent crimes. Charges were supported by witness statements detailing the group's operations and the accused's role in facilitating the gang's activities.

Findings of Court:
The evidence presented justifies the denial of bail; the nature of the accusations and the organized crime framework influence the court's stance on bail eligibility.

Issues: The primary issues included the validity of the charge against the accused in light of the definitions under the MCOC Act and the adjudication of the sufficiency of evidence against him.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscores that involvement in organized crime facilitates stringent bail conditions under the MCOC Act. The presence of multiple charges against members of the syndicate reinforces the decision against bail.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's bail request and grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. allegations against the petitioner related to organized crime. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. state's evidence for organized crime involvement. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. definition and criteria under mcoca. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. basis for prosecution under mcoca. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. sanction validity and prosecution eligibility. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. arguments regarding inadequacy of evidence. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. confessional statements and their admissibility. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
9. court's observations on witness testimony. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
10. final decision on bail application. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The petitioner Parveen Bazard @ Lara seeks the grant of bail in relation to FIR No.252/18, PS Special Cell under Sections 3 & 4 of the MCOC Act, 1999 submitting to the effect that he has been falsely implicated and has nothing to do with the allegations in the said FIR;

that the investigation in the matter has already been completed and the charge sheet has been submitted;

that the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been given without application of mind;

that the petitioner is not involved in any organized crime;

and that in the charge sheet there is no witness cited who has deposed against the petitioner.

2. Though a submission had been made by the applicant through the application seeking the grant of interim bail for a period of three weeks in view of the ailment of his mother during the course of submissions made on 04.09.2020, it was urged that the learned counsel for the applicant sought that the matter be heard qua the bail application itself and thus the present application has been considered to the extent of the prayer made by the applicant seeking the grant of regular bail in relation to the FIR aforementioned.

3. Notice of the application was issued to the State and the status reports dated 28.08.2020, 03.09.2020, 21.09.2020, 21.10.2020, were submitted on behalf of the State.

4. Documents in the form of the copy of the order sheet dated 10.08.2018 of the Ld. ACMM-01, New Delhi in FIR No.252/2018, PS Alipur under Sections 3 & 4 of the MCOC Act, 1999 and the copies of the consent memos of the co-accused Yogesh and Dinesh were submitted on record by the State.

5. Written submissions were submitted on behalf of the State dated 24.11.2020 and 14.12.2020. Oral submissions were also made on behalf of either side during the course of hearing of the application.

6. The petitioner in the instant case is in custody since 02.09.2019 in FIR No.252/2018, PS Alipur (investigation with Special Cell, New Delhi) under Sections 3 , 4 of the MCOC Act, 1999. It is alleged by the State against him that he is an active member of an organized crime syndicate led by the accused Jitender @ Gogi which is a very desperate gang in nature and involved in several heinous cases like murders, extortion etc. with there being more than 30 cases against the gang leader Jitender @ Gogi. The State alleged that this gang has a history of escaping from police custody and that on 30.07.2016, members of this organized crime syndicate including the present applicant Praveen Bazard @ Lara got their gang leader Jitender @ Gogi forcefully released from the police custody, while he was being taken to a court in Haryana. The culprits are alleged to have used firearms and chili powder on the armed guard of the 3rd Bn. accompanying the accused Jitender @ Gogi for the escape and on absconding, this gang is alleged to have committed numerous murders apart from indulging in extortion.

7. It has been asserted through the status report dated 28.08.2020 submitted by the State under the signatures of Mr.Lalit Mohan Negi, ACP, Special Cell/NDR, New Delhi that this gang has spread a terror in the area and no one comes forward to make a complaint against this gang and that this gang also targets witnesses of the cases lodged against th