Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11070
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Sharma, J
SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 1130/2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Vinit Pathak, Ms. Vartika Maurya
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Ms. Nandita Rao, Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Mr. Abhinandan Gautam, Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Mr. Amit Peshwani, Mr. Jasraj Singh Chhabra, Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Ms. Samridhi Dobal, Ms. Palak Jain, Mr. Virender Kadyan, Pradeep Rai
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Vinit Pathak, Ms. Vartika Maurya
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Ms. Nandita Rao, Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Mr. Abhinandan Gautam, Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Mr. Amit Peshwani, Mr. Jasraj Singh Chhabra, Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Ms. Samridhi Dobal, Ms. Palak Jain, Mr. Virender Kadyan, Pradeep Rai
Mens rea is essential for conviction under MCOCA; mere negligence or omission does not suffice. Prolonged detention without trial can warrant bail if evidence is insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 - Sections 12 and 21(4) - Bail application for Superintendent of Jail involved in organized crime syndicate - Allegations of facilitating extortion from inside prison - Prosecution relied on confessions of co-accused and circumstantial evidence - Court emphasized necessity of mens rea for conviction under MCOCA - Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence and prolonged detention without trial. (Paras 1, 3, 42, 43)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Jail Superintendent, was accused of facilitating an organized crime syndicate led by an inmate, allowing illegal activities and extortion from within the jail. The case was built on confessions from co-accused and circumstantial evidence, with no direct proof of pecuniary gain to the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The evidence against the applicant was deemed insufficient to establish mens rea or direct involvement in organized crime, leading to the conclusion that the applicant was not likely to commit further offenses while on bail.
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant had the requisite mens rea to be charged under MCOCA and the validity of the sanction to invoke MCOCA against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere negligence or omission does not equate to culpability under MCOCA, emphasizing that the prosecution must establish direct involvement and intent for conviction. The court noted that the applicant's prolonged detention without trial warranted consideration for bail.
Result: Bail granted.
JUDGEMENT
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
AMIT SHARMA, J. Page 2 of 43
1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („ Cr.P.C .‟) read with Sections 12 and 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 („MCOCA‟) seeks regular bail in case FIR No.
208/2021, under Sections 170/384/386/388/419/420/506/186/353/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („ IPC ‟), Sections 3/4 of MCOCA and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act , registered at P.S. Special Cell. Background
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
- i.
- The present FIR was registered on basis of a complaint of Ms. Aditi S. Singh alleging that on 15.06.2020, she received a call from one landline number on her mobile phone and the caller introduced himself as a senior officer in the Ministry of Law. It is alleged that the said caller proposed to help her in securing bail for her husband, who was in judicial custody in the cases relating to M/s Religare Enterprises Ltd. It is alleged that the said person demanded Rs. 20 Crores for getting the work done and conveyed the modalities regarding delivery of the money. It is further alleged that subsequently, the said caller, through his associates, extorted money from her on multiple occasions.
- ii.
- With the help of the technical surveillance of the mobile phone used by the said caller, it was revealed that the caller was one Sukash V.
- Chander Shekhar (hereinafter referred to as „SCS‟), who was lodged in Rohini Jail for various cases. It alleged that the complainant was to deliver Rs. 1 Crore on 07.08.2021. Accordingly, a trap was laid and accused Pradeep Ramdanee was caught accepting the aforesaid sum of Page 3 of 43 Rs. 1 Crore from the complainant. Accused Pradeep Ramdanee further revealed that he collected the money on the instructions of his brother, namely, Deepak Ramnani. The aforesaid accused persons were arrested and under interrogation and they revealed that the aforesaid SCS was the mastermind who had asked them to collect the payment from the complainant. It is alleged that the aforesaid SCS was lodged in Rohini Jail as an under trial prisoner in case of allegedly taking money from AIADMK leader TTV Dinakaran on the pretext of helping him retain „two leaves‟ symbol for his party.
- iii.
- It is alleged that on the intervening night of 07/08.08.2021, a raid was carried out by Special Cell at Cell No. 204, Ward No. 3, Jail No. 10, Rohini Jail. During the said raid, two mobile phones were recovered from the possession of accused SCS and he was subsequently arrested in the present case. It is alleged that interrogation of the accused SCS led to the identification and arrest of his associates and co-conspirators.
- iv.
- During further investigation, Sections 3/4 of the MCOCA were invoked in the present FIR, with the approval of the competent authority.
- v.
- During further investigation, Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, Assistant Superintendent, Delhi Prisons was arrested. It is alleged that during interrogation, he accepted his role in collecting money from a person on instructions of accused SCS for himself as well as for other jail officials to provide facilities to SCS, in order to enable him to continue his illegal activities of extortion. It is alleged that he further disclosed that he had received about Rs. 60-75 lakhs from accused Deepak Ramnani and accused Pradeep Ramdanee at the instance of accused Page 4 of 43 SCS fortnightly and the said amount was distributed amongst the other staff of Jail No. 10, Rohini Jail, as per the share agreed between accused SCS and other jail officials.
- vi.
- During further investigation, at the instance of aforesaid Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, Mr. Subhash Batra, Deputy Superintendent, Rohini Jail was also interrogated, who allegedly disclosed that he was involved in helping and facilitating SCS in his criminal activities. It is alleged that he admitted his role in helping accused SCS by providing facilities in Cell No. 204 to carry out is criminal activities. vii.
- I
