Bail under MCOCA requires strict adherence to established procedures; anticipatory bail is not permitted, emphasizing judicial scrutiny in cases of organized crime.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J. The State has filed these appeals under Section 12 of The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to `MCOCA') read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (MCOCA)-cum-ASJ. Since broad facts in both the cases are same and the appeals are also on the same lines, so both the matters have been taken up together for disposal.

1.1. The case of the petitioners is that regular bail was granted to both the respondents/accused persons without they being in judicial custody and they were directed to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. The application filed before the learned Special Judge was neither an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. nor an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the heading of the application stated that this was an application for joining the investigation and grant of bail. There is no provision under MCOCA for grant of anticipatory bail but the applications were considered by learned ASJ treating them as anticipatory bail applications. These applications were moved on 23.11.2020, the response was filed on 25.11.2020 and on the same date, these applications were disposed of by two separate detailed orders on identical grounds.

1.2. In brief the facts of the case are that an FIR No. 397/2019 was registered under Section 3/4 of MCOCA at PS: Hari Nagar against Salman Tyagi and his crime syndicate members. He had formed an interstate gang for running an organised crime syndicate with an objective of gaining pecuniary benefits for himself, his family members and his associates. Accused Salman Tyagi was arrested on 03.10.2020 and subsequently other members of the crime syndicate were also arrested. Confessional statements of all the arrested accused persons were recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA, where they admitted their different roles in running/participating in the crimes syndicate of extortion of money by creating fear among public persons with the use of illegal fire arms and they are also dealing in drugs/contrabands.

1.3. Charge-sheet was filed against the arrested accused persons on 26.03.2020. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Manish Malhotra @ Sunny and Mohd. Faizal @ Bablu are stated to be under process. Accused persons/respondents are stated to be involved in case FIR No. 342/2012 dated 25.09.2012 under Sections 307/429/147/148/149/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, in which accused Salman Tyagi along with gang members and the present two respondents/accused were arrested in the case for assaulting the complainant with an iron rod, sword and for firing gun shots upon the complainant.

1.4. Accused respondent/Hazi Mansoor is also stated to be involved in case FIR No. 338/2012 under Sections 308/323/34 IPC at PS Hari Nagar in which accused Salman Tyagi, the present accused/respondent and other accused persons had beaten the complainant so severely that he would have died of the consequences of beating.

1.5. It is the further case of the petitioner that during investigation, some of the immovable properties belonging to the accused persons were identified. The said properties were identified by main accused Salman Tyagi during his PC remand as belonging to him or his family members, including the present accused/respondents. As per law, there is an FIR against the accused persons apart from confessional statements from the co-accused and statements of independent witnesses, who had testified that they were threatened by the present accused/respondents, so these are enough grounds to invoke the stringent provisions