IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail - duty of court.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application No. 872 of 2011 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court granted bail to the respondent herein - Accused No.9 in MCOC Special Case No. 10 of 2010 pending before the Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 for Greater Bombay.

3. Brief facts:

(a) According to the prosecution, an “organised crime syndicate” headed by wanted accused Bharat Nepali and Vijay Shetty is operating overseas. The said syndicate has indulged in various continuous unlawful activities in the nature of extortion and contract killings in Mumbai and other places through their members. All the accused persons pending on the file before the MCOC Special Court, Greater Bombay are alleged to be the members of the said syndicate.

(b) On 03.06.2010, one Farid Tanasha, known criminal, was shot dead at his residence at Tilaknagar, Chembur, Mumbai. On the same day, an FIR being No. 122 of 2010 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 302 and 452 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Tilaknagar Police Station.

(c) During investigation, DCB, CID, Unit No. 6, Mumbai learnt that the murder was committed on the instructions of Bharat Nepali and Vijay Shetty (wanted accused). Further, it was revealed in the investigation that one Dattatray Bhakare (Accused No. 7 therein) - a builder, had contracted Bharat Nepali and Vijay Shetty for eliminating Farid Tanasha (since deceased), who agreed to help the members of a Co-op. Housing Society in order to settle their dispute with the builder. It was also revealed in the investigation that the said builder allegedly financed a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs for the said killing.

(d) It was further revealed during investigation that the respondent herein was an active member of the “organised crime syndicate” and was managing funds of the syndicate and through him the money changed hands from co-accused Dattatray Bhakare to Jafar Razialam Khan @ Abbas and Mohd. Sakib Shahnawaz Alam Khan, Accused Nos. 1 & 2 respectively, who killed Farid Tanasha.

(e) On 25.09.2010, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, accorded sanction for prosecution of the arrested accused persons including the respondent herein under Section 3(1)(i), (2) and (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (in short ‘the MCOCA’) and hence the respondent is alleged to have committed the offences provided hereinabove along with the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.

(f) The respondent herein preferred an application for bail in Special Case No. 10 of 2010 before the MCOC Special Court, Greater Bombay. By order dated 07.05.2011, the Special Court dismissed the said application.

(g) Being aggrieved, the respondent herein preferred Criminal Bail Application No. 872 of 2011 before the High Court. By impugned order dated 10.08.2011, the High Court accepted the case of the respondent and granted him bail by imposing certain conditions.

(h) Questioning the order granting bail to the respondent, the State of Maharashtra has filed the present appeal by way of special leave.

4. Heard Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, learned counsel for the appellant-State and Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the respondent-accused.

5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether in the light of the allegations made and materials placed by the prosecution, the High Court was justified in granting bail, particularly, in the light of restriction imposed under Section 21(4) of MCOCA?

6. Learned counsel for the State, after taking us through the averments in the FIR, confessional statement of Mohd. Rafiq Abdul Samad Shaikh @ Shankar (Accused No. 6 therein), relevant provisions of MCOCA and other mater