2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHISH @DEVA – Appellant
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-1618/2024
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 02nd April, 2025 Pronounced on: 29th April, 2025 + BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024 ASHISH @ DEVA .....Applicant Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Pipaniya, Mr. Harjas Pratap Singh Anand, Mr. Turang Pandit, Ms. Sanjana Nair, Ms. Janvi Narang, Ms. Anurupita Kaur and Ms. Pallavi Pipaniya, Ms. Nikita Garg, Mr. Gopesh Jindal, Advocates.
versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State.
Insp. Surender Singh, PS Kanjhawala.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. This is the second application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) and Section 21 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCOCA’) seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 0358/2020 under Sections 3(1)(i)/3(2)/3(4) of the MCOCA, registered at P.S.
Kanjhawala, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
2. The first application on behalf of the applicant seeking bail before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.04.2022 in BAIL APPLN. 348/2022.
3. The aforesaid FIR was registered against the accused(s) Deepak Dabas @ Teetar and his associates namely, Pradeep, Surajpal @ Bhagta, Ajay Dabas, Pankaj @ Maharaj, Raj Kumar and the present applicant.
4. On 23.02.2022, after the investigation, chargesheet has been filed and the present applicant has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i)/3(2)/3(4) of the MCOCA.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the present applicant alongwith the co-accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar (the kingpin) and other associates had formed an interstate gang for gaining pecuniary benefits or undue economic alongwith other advantages for themselves and for their leader, i.e., Deepak Dabas @ Teetar. It is stated that the present applicant was involved in 5 cases of attempt to murder and robbery as per the list annexed with the status report filed for the purpose of the present application. The present applicant was arrested on 07.10.2021. As per the chargesheet, during the period from 2012- 2020, the co-accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar alongwith his associates including the present applicant were running an organised crime syndicate by indulging and committing various unlawful activities/offences by use of violence and/or threat of violence and/or intimidation and/or coercion and/or by other unlawful means with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantages for themselves. As per the case Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR of the prosecution, the aforementioned crime syndicate was involved in 13 FIRs and the involvement of the present applicant was reflected in 2 FIRs, namely, FIR No. 110/2012 under Sections 365/392/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Rohini (South) and FIR No. 217/2016 under Sections 186/353/307/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at P.S.
Begampur.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution qua the present applicant does not satisfy the requisite ingredients for offences under the MCOCA. It is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to place on record any material to show any nexus or involvement of the present applicant with the alleged crime syndicate.
7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in framing the charge under Section 3(1)(i) of the MCOCA. Section
3(1)(i) of the MCOCA, reads as under:
“Punishment for organised crime- (1) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall,-
(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac;”
8. It is submitted that it is not t