Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Nanjappa VS Union of India...
Nanjappa VS Union of India - 2007 3 Supreme 683 : In the context of organized crime, the court held that despite the gravity of the offences under the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act (KCOC Act), including conspiracy, abetment, and facilitation of organized crime (Section 3(2)), and the involvement of the accused as a public servant who facilitated unlawful activities, the appellant had already been in jail for more than three years and four months. Charges were framed only in August 2006, and 256 witnesses were cited. Given the nature of the appellant''''s alleged role, the prolonged period of incarceration, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial, the court found it a fit case for grant of bail, emphasizing that the circumstances warranted release on bail despite the organized crime dimensions of the case.Checking relevance for Prasad Shrikant Purohit VS State of Maharashtra...
Prasad Shrikant Purohit VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 3 Supreme 257 : Under Section 21(4)(b) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, an accused is not entitled to bail if there is a nexus between the accused and a member of an ''''organized crime syndicate'''' or with an offence in the nature of ''''organized crime'''' from earlier cases (such as Parbhani and Jalna incidents). In the Malegaon bomb blast case, A-7 was found to have such nexus with the prime accused of the earlier cases and the nature of the offence, and thus was not entitled to bail. However, for other appellants (excluding A-7), there was no material showing such nexus as of now, and therefore they can be granted bail by the Special Court on merits. The court emphasized that while the possibility of future material showing nexus cannot be ruled out, the absence of current evidence means bail should be granted.Checking relevance for Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav VS State Of Maharashtra...
Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav VS State Of Maharashtra - 2006 9 Supreme 560 : Under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (MACOCA), two cumulative conditions must be satisfied before bail can be granted in an offence under MACOCA: (1) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, and (2) the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The term ''''reasonable grounds'''' means something more than prima facie grounds and requires substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty. This reasonable belief must be based on facts and circumstances sufficient in themselves to justify the court''''s satisfaction that the accused is not guilty. In the case of an accused charged under Section 3(2) or Section 24 of MACOCA, the mere existence of an alleged conversation with a key accused (e.g., Telgi) may show acquaintance but is not per se sufficient to prove direct involvement in organized crime or abetment thereof. However, if such circumstances are found to constitute reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and the accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, the case may be considered fit for grant of bail.Checking relevance for Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane VS State Of Maharashtra...
Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane VS State Of Maharashtra - 2006 4 Supreme 214 : The court granted bail to the appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Stamps, who was arrested in connection with offences under the IPC and Sections 3(2), 3(5), and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), in relation to his alleged involvement with a co-accused (Telgi) in a large-scale organized crime of printing and supplying fake stamps. Despite the serious nature of the alleged crime and the fact that charges had not yet been framed, the court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail due to the length of time he had been in custody. The court reversed the order of the Special Court and directed the appellant to be released on bail, subject to specific conditions: furnishing a security of Rs. 1 lakh with two solvent sureties of the same amount, complying with the conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, reporting to the Investigating Officer between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM every third Saturday of the month, and surrendering his passport (or filing an affidavit if he had no passport) before the Special Court if it was not already in its custody.Checking relevance for Ash Mohammad VS Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu...
Checking relevance for Sagar Laxman Sonawane VS State of Maharashtra...
Sagar Laxman Sonawane VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 791 : The court granted bail to the applicant despite allegations of complicity in organized crime, taking into account the retracted confession of a co-accused and the lack of material evidence to establish the applicant''''s involvement. The court emphasized that the prohibition under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and the interpretation of Clause (b) of Section 23(4) of the MCOC Act supported the grant of bail, indicating that a retracted confession by a co-accused does not automatically establish the applicant''''s guilt and that bail may be granted when there is insufficient material evidence linking the applicant to organized crime.
