Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court granted bail to the accused in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA), citing contradictions in witness statements and excessive pre-trial incarceration. The court observed that the accused had been in custody for over six years without trial progress and that the predicate offense necessary for invoking MCOCA was registered much later than the primary offense, making its application questionable. The court ruled that continued incarceration without progress in the case violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.
Facts of the Case
- The accused was arrested on August 3, 2018, and remained in custody for over six years and four months.
- The case relates to an incident on August 2, 2018, where the first informant and his associate were accosted at night by two individuals who allegedly attempted to snatch the complainant’s handbag.
- The complainant initially stated that Accused No.2 (the present applicant) fired at him.
- However, in his supplementary statement, he claimed that Accused No.3 was the shooter, while Accused No.2 injured him with a knuckle fighter.
- The police apprehended Accused Nos.2 and 3 with the help of bystanders. Upon searching them:
- A knuckle fighter was found on Accused No.3.
- A gupti (small swordstick) was found on Accused No.2.
- No firearm was recovered from Accused No.2.
- Accused No.1, who was alleged to be the leader of the organized crime syndicate, was arrested three weeks later.
The prosecution invoked MCOCA, alleging that Accused No.2 was part of an organized crime syndicate led by Accused No.1, who was involved in multiple offenses.
Issues Raised Before the Court
- Does the prolonged incarceration of the accused without trial progress violate his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Do contradictions in witness statements undermine the prosecution’s case?
- Is MCOCA applicable when the predicate offense was registered much later than the current offense?
- Was the accused’s connection to an organized crime syndicate sufficiently established to justify the invocation of MCOCA?
Petitioner’s (Accused’s) Arguments
The counsel for the accused presented the following arguments:
1. Prolonged Incarceration Violates Article 21
- The accused had been in custody for more than six years without trial progress.
- No charges had been framed yet, and there was no indication that the trial would begin soon.
- This violated the right to a speedy trial, which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
2. Inconsistencies in Witness Statements
- The first informant initially stated that Accused No.2 (the present applicant) fired a gun at him.
- However, in his supplementary statement, he changed his account, stating that Accused No.3 fired the gun, while Accused No.2 attacked him with a knuckle fighter.
- Such contradictory statements weakened the prosecution’s case.
3. No Recovery of Firearm from Accused No.2
- The police did not recover a firearm from Accused No.2, which contradicted the prosecution’s claim that he used one.
- This raised doubts about his alleged role in the shooting.
4. Predicate Offense Was Registered After the Present Case
- Under MCOCA, a predicate offense must have been committed before the current crime, showing a pattern of organized crime.
- However, in this case, the predicate offense was registered much later than the present case.
- This indicated that MCOCA was wrongly applied.
5. No Established Link to an Organized Crime Syndicate
- The prosecution failed to prove that Accused No.2 was part of an organized crime syndicate.
- There was no evidence of previous joint criminal activities between Accused No.2 and Accused No.1.
6. Parity with Co-Accused
- Accused No.3 had already been granted bail by the court.
- Since Accused No.2’s role was similar, he also deserved bail.
Respondent’s (Prosecution’s) Arguments
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail application and presented the following arguments:
1. Clear Nexus with Organized Crime Syndicate
- Accused No.2 was linked to Accused No.1, who was involved in at least six serious offenses.
- This connection justified the invocation of MCOCA.
2. MCOCA Invocation Was Justified
- The accused was part of an organized crime syndicate that engaged in continuous unlawful activities.
- The predicate offense, though registered later, was still valid under MCOCA.
3. Confessional Statement Under MCOCA
- The confessional statement of Accused No.1, recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA, implicated Accused No.2.
- This statement was admissible in court.
4. Prior Offenses in Uttar Pradesh
- The accused had been involved in two cases in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, under the Arms Act and IPC.
- This history indicated his criminal background.
Analysis of the Law
1. MCOCA Requirements
For MCOCA to apply, the following conditions must be met:
- The accused must be part of an organized crime syndicate.
- There must be at least two prior charge sheets in the last ten years for offenses punishable with three years or more.
- The offense must be continuing unlawful activity.
2. Relevant Judicial Precedents
The accused relied on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions:
- Mohamad Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya v. State of Gujarat – Predicate offenses must predate the current crime for MCOCA to apply.
- Girish Kumaran Nayar v. State of Maharashtra – Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21.
- Tatyasaheb Laxman Karande v. State of Maharashtra – Mere association with a criminal is not sufficient to apply MCOCA.
The prosecution relied on:
- State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty – Supported nexus theory, linking accused to a crime syndicate.
- Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra – Held that confessions recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA are valid.
Court’s Reasoning
- The contradictions in witness statements raised reasonable doubt about the accused’s involvement.
- MCOCA was inapplicable because:
- The predicate offense was registered after the primary offense.
- No prior charge sheets against the accused were established.
- The confessional statement of Accused No.1 was not conclusive.
- The accused was in custody for six years without trial, violating his right to a speedy trial.
Conclusion
The court granted bail, holding that:
- The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under MCOCA.
- The contradictions in statements and lack of direct evidence weakened the case.
- The accused had been in long incarceration without trial.
- Bail was granted with strict conditions.
Implications
- Reinforces strict conditions for applying MCOCA.
- Highlights the importance of a speedy trial.
- May impact similar pending bail applications under MCOCA.
This judgment ensures that MCOCA is not misused to indefinitely detain accused individuals without strong evidence.