Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Gopal Radheshyam Yadav, arraigned as Accused No.2 in Crime No.I-131 of 2018 registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station, Dombivli, sought bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOC Act). The incident occurred on 02.08.2018 when the First Informant, Pradeep Jain, and his associate were accosted by Accused Nos.2 and 3, who attempted to snatch a handbag. The prosecution alleged that the applicant fired a weapon and used a knuckle fighter. However, the complainant's first statement attributed the firing to the applicant, while the supplementary statement stated that Accused No.3 fired and the applicant used a knuckle fighter. The weapon (gun) was not recovered from the applicant. The applicant was arrested on 03.08.2018 and had been in custody for over 6 years. The trial had not progressed, and charges had not been framed. The applicant's counsel argued that the MCOC Act was wrongly invoked as there was no predicate offence against the applicant; the alleged predicate offence FIR was registered on 29.11.2018, after the present incident. The applicant was also involved in two prior offences in Uttar Pradesh, but no charge-sheet had been filed or cognizance taken. The State opposed bail, claiming the applicant was part of an organised crime syndicate led by Accused No.1. The Court noted the dichotomy in the complainant's statements and the lack of recovery of the weapon. It held that the conditions for invoking the MCOC Act were not satisfied, as there was no continuing unlawful activity established. The Court also considered the long incarceration and the fact that co-accused Accused No.3 had been granted bail. Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant's release on bail on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - MCOC Act - Predicate Offence - Conditions for invoking MCOC Act require a predicate offence with charge-sheet filed and cognizance taken within preceding ten years - Applicant not shown to be part of any organised crime syndicate - Held that mere registration of FIR after the incident cannot be treated as predicate offence (Paras 5-7). B) Criminal Law - Bail - MCOC Act - Continuing Unlawful Activity - Definition under Section 2(d) requires more than one charge-sheet filed and cognizance taken within ten years - Applicant's involvement in two prior offences in Uttar Pradesh not shown to be part of syndicate - Held that prosecution failed to establish continuing unlawful activity (Paras 6-9). C) Criminal Law - Bail - Long Incarceration - Applicant in custody for 6 years 4 months 18 days - Trial not progressed, charges not framed - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 - Held that continued detention would violate fundamental rights (Paras 8-10). D) Criminal Law - Bail - Parity - Co-accused Accused No.3 granted bail on 10.05.2024 - Applicant similarly situated - Held that parity warrants grant of bail (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the MCOC Act given the lack of predicate offences, long incarceration, and dichotomy in complainant statements.
Final Decision
Bail application allowed. Applicant to be released on bail on executing PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties. Conditions: not tamper with evidence, not contact witnesses, attend trial regularly, not leave jurisdiction without court permission, surrender passport, report to police station once a month.
Law Points
- Bail
- MCOC Act
- Predicate Offence
- Continuing Unlawful Activity
- Organised Crime Syndicate
- Article 21
- Speedy Trial
- Parity
