Page 1 of 21

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(CRL) 1555/2011 and Crl. M.A. No. 17832/2011 (Stay)

%

Reserved on: 9^th April, 2012

Decided on: 21^st May, 2012

DR.MAHIPAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Mr. R.S. Kundu

and Mr. Abdul Majid, Advocates.

versus

CBI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel

for the CBI with Mr. Uday Prakash,

Advocate.

+

W.P.(CRL) 1556/2011 and Crl. M.A. NO. 17834/2011 (Stay)

DR.MAHIPAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Mr. R.S. Kundu

and Mr. Abdul Majid, Advocates.

versus

CBI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel

for the CBI with Mr. Uday Prakash,

Advocate.

+

W.P.(CRL) 242/2012 and Crl. M.A. No. 2046/2012 (Stay)

MAHIPAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Mr. R.S. Kundu

and Mr. Abdul Majid, Advocates.

versus

2012:DHC:3482

Page 2 of 21

CBI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel

for the CBI with Mr. Uday Prakash,

Advocate.

+

W.P.(CRL) 243/2012 and Crl. M.A. No. 2048/2012 (Stay)

MAHIPAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Mr. R.S. Kundu

and Mr. Abdul Majid, Advocates.

versus

CBI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel

for the CBI with Mr. Uday Prakash,

Advocate.

+

W.P.(CRL) 244/2012 and Crl. M.A. N. 2050/2012 (Stay)

MAHIPAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Mr. R.S. Kundu

and Mr. Abdul Majid, Advocates.

versus

CBI & ANR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel

for the CBI with Mr. Uday Prakash,

Advocate.

+

W.P.(CRL) 245/2012 and Crl. M.A. No. 2052/2012 (Stay)

MAHIPAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Mr. R.S. Kundu

and Mr. Abdul Majid, Advocates.

versus

CBI & ANR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel

for the CBI with Mr. Uday Prakash,

2012:DHC:3482

Page 3 of 21

Advocate.

Coram:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. By W.P.(CRL) Nos. 1555/2011 and 1556/2011 the Petitioner

challenges the order dated 18^th October, 2011 granting prior approval by the

DIG CBI for invoking the provisions of Section 3 of Maharashtra Control of

Organized Crime Act, 1999 ( in short the MCOCA) against the Petitioner in

RC/219/2011/E0007 and RC/219/2011/E0008 as illegal. Vide W.P.(CRL)

Nos. 242/2012 and 243/2012 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 30^th

November, 2011 passed by the Learned Designated Court remanding the

Petitioner to judicial custody under MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) in the

abovementioned RC Numbers. Vide W.P.(CRL) Nos. 244/2012 and

245/2012 the Petitioner challenges the order dated 14^th January, 2012 passed

by the DIG CBI according prior approval for invoking the provisions of

Section 3 MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) in RC/219/2011/E009 and

RC/219/2011/E0010 respectively.

2. The two principal contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioner are

that for the same set of charge-sheet MCOCA has been invoked in 4 cases

and secondly the basic ingredients of organized crime are missing in the

present cases. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that all the exams

were over by May, 2011. Thus when the offence of continuing unlawful

activity was invoked against the Petitioner, Petitioner was not continuing any

unlawful activity. Further, one single person cannot be said to organize a

crime syndicate. Though the accused in the FIR are common, however

MCOCA has been invoked only against the Petitioner and against no other

2012:DHC:3482

Page 4 of 21

person. It is further