IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
BILKISBANU (BILKISBANO) HANIFKHAN @ KALO MUNNO AMIRKHAN JATMALEK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 12478 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 20(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Act, 2015 - Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 379, 413 , 307, 147, 148, 149, 152 and 186 - MCOCA Act - Section 2(1) (d) - Attempt to murder – Punishment for theft - Applicant may be released on bail since she has been wrongly roped in offence - He has submitted that five FIRs, which are registered against applicant, are clubbed together, for which separate trial will be connected - Applicant may not be made to suffer rigors of trial under provisions of Act - He has referred to Article 20(2) of Constitution of India, and has submitted that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for same offence more than once and applicant may be released on bail - While referring to various FIRs and charge-sheets registered against applicant, it is contended that it cannot be said that applicant is continuing in unlawful activity of an organized crime or she is part of an organized syndicate as defined under Clause (f) of Section 2 of Act - He has submitted that FIRs, which are registered in year respective police stations pertains to offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC is not a serious offence - It is submitted that last three FIRs are registered on same day - except the offence punishable under Section 413 of IPC, applicant was not named in FIR, but she has been named in supplementary charge-sheets - It is submitted that looking to contents of FIR and allegations made against applicant, it is apparent that she is not remotely connected to an organized crime syndicate - It is submitted by him that applicant is not a history-sheeter nor she is associated with any kind of syndicate. It is submitted that initially - Police came to arrest one Hanif and after his arrest, the applicant was later on arrested - It is also submitted by him that after arrest of before last applicant has been falsely implicated on his statement – Held, Applicant is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code. While examining the case of applicant, against whom the FIR under the Act has been registered, Court cannot be oblivious of the provisions of Section 20(4) of Act - accused for bail has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of committing such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail being a Special Act, dealing with organized crime by an organized crime syndicate, the Court is required to record its opinion that there are reasonable norms for believing that the accused is “not guilty” of alleged offence. Such satisfaction is an inbuilt mechanism of aforesaid provision - Looking to overall contents of FIRs and charge-sheets and the role attributed to the applicant, applicant is unable to carve out any exception, which can impress this Court to from a prima-facie opinion, which can satisfy the expression “reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of committing such offence – Application rejected.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.
2. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11211016200542 of 2020 with Dhrangadhra Taluka Police Station, District Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Act, 2015 (for short “the Act”).
3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza has submitted that the applicant may be released on bail since she has been wrongly roped in the aforesaid offence. He has submitted that five FIRs, which are registered against the present applicant, are clubbed together, for which separate trial will be connected, hence the applicant may not be made to suffer the rigors of the trial under the provisions of the Act. He has referred to Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, and has submitted that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once and hence, the applicant may be released on bail.
3.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza has further submitted that except one offence, which is registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) in the year 2016, all the other offence pertains to offence under Section 379 of the IPC and one offence under the provisions of Section 413 of the IPC.
3.2 While referring to various FIRs and charge-sheets registered against the applicant, it is contended that it cannot be said that the applicant is continuing in unlawful activity of an organized crime or she is part of an organized syndicate as defined under the Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act. He has submitted that the FIRs, which are registered in the year 2018, 2019 and 2020 in the respective police stations pertains to the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC, which is not a serious offence. It is submitted that the last three FIRs are registered on the same day.
3.3 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza has further submitted that in the afore-noted offence, except the offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC, the applicant was not named in the FIR, but she has been named in the supplementary charge-sheets. It is submitted that looking to the contents of the FIR and the allegations made against the applicant, it is apparent that she is not remotely connected to an organized crime syndicate. It is submitted by him that the applicant is not a history-sheeter nor she is associated with any kind of syndicate. It is submitted that initially on 08.08.2020, police came to arrest one Hanif and after his arrest, the applicant was later on arrested. It is also submitted by him that after the arrest of one Mehmood Malaji before last August-September, 2020, the applicant has been falsely implicated on his statement. It is submitted that all the offences are registered on the statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered as substantial piece of evidence and hence, she may be released on bail.
3.4 While referring to the definition of the Act, more particularly Section 2(c), learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza has submitted that for filing of more than one charge-sheet for the offence punishable with more than 3 years imprisonment is not enough, but it must be satisfied that the unlawful activity is grave. It is submitted that if it is only an organized crime committed by an accused after the promulgation of the Act, the same has to be considered in light of the previous charge-sheet. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the judgment dated 06.05.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 38191 of 2021 by this Court. It is submitted that the applicant has not misused her liberty when she was granted t
Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Point of law : Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the co....
(1) Organised Crime – For the purpose of organised crime, there has to be continuing unlawful activity – There cannot be continuing unlawful activity unless at least two charge-sheets are found to ha....
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 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.
To establish organised crime under Section 111 of the BNS, more than one charge sheet must be filed against the accused within ten years; absence of such negates the offence.
The severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence, and involvement in criminal activities are crucial factors in deciding bail applications.
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....
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.