Delhi District Court
State vs Amit @ Babloo Etc. on 13 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR: ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE01:
NORTH: ROHINI: DELHI
SC No. 49/13
FIR No.299/09
PS Narela
U/s 3 MCOCA.
State Versus Amit @ Babloo etc.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. r/w section 21 (4) of MCOCA for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant/accused Ashwini Bhardwaj @ Sonu.
2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused argued that from the entire charge sheet filed by the prosecution there is no allegation against the accused/applicant that he has committed any offence against the applicant/accused that he has committed any offence with the objection of gain and pecuniary benefit or other advantage for himself or for any other persons. Ld. Counsel further argued that there is only one case against the applicant/accused with coaccused Amit @ Babloo who is as per the prosecution is gang leader and that case pertains to the year 2006 and he has been acquitted in that case by the court of Shri R.P. Pandey, ASJ, Outer vide order dated 07.09.2010, whereas the present case under MCOCA has been invoked against the applicant/accused in the year 2009. Thus there is three years gap from which it is evident that State V Amit @ Babloo etc. FIR No.299/09 PS Narela Page No. 1 of 6 applicant/accused was not continuous involved in any other activity which is necessary for the purpose of invoking MCOCA, as per Section 2(d) of MCOCA. Hence in these circumstances, applicant/accused who is in JC since 7.6.11 is entitled for bail.
3. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State argued that applicant/accused is involved in five cases of heinous offence, out to which he has one case with coaccused Amit @ Babloo i.e FIR no.57/06 u/s 307/506/34 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act. The applicant/accused is involved in the organized crime and is part of the gang which is headed by accused Amit @ Babloo who is involved in more than 27 cases ranging from murder attempt to murder extortion, illegal arms etc. and applicant/accused along with coaccused and other persons of the gang are running a syndicate and involved in unlawful activities continuously with the intention to create terror in the mind of peoples of the area for gaining undue advantage. Ld. Addl. PP for the State relied upon the order dt. 1.11.11 in Narender Kumar V State, Bail Application no.1440/11 passed by Hon'ble Ms.Justice Mukta Gupta.
4. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record. The applicant/accused has been charge sheeted for offence u/s 3 of the MACOCA. Section 3 of the MCOCA provides that whoever commits an offence of organized crime shall be punishable with death or State V Amit @ Babloo etc. FIR No.299/09 PS Narela Page No. 2 of 6 imprisonment of life if the offence results in the death of any person and in other cases to be punishable with imprisonment to a term which shall not be less than 5 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and fine. Further, as per Section 3 any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate or who conspires or attempts to conspires or abets shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 5 years but which may extend to life and fine. "Organized crime"
is defined in Section 2 (e) as under : "Section 2--Definitions
(e) "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objection of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency."
5. Further "continuing unlawful activity" is defined in Section 2
(d) of the MCOCA as under :
Section 2--Definitions
(d) "continuing unlawful activity" means any activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate State V Amit @ Babloo etc. FIR No.299/09 PS Narela Page No. 3 of 6 or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one chargesheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence."
6. Thus, a perusal of Section 2 (e) and 2 (d) clearly shows that if any offence is committed by any individual either singly or jointly as a member of the syndicate or on behalf of the syndicate by use of violence or threat of violence, intimidation or coercion with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefit, the same is an organized crime. Section 2 (f) defines "organized crime syndicate" as a group of two or more persons who are acting either singly or collectively as a syndicate or gang indulging in activities of organized crime.
7. Now returning back to the present case. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the applicant/accused Ashwini Bhardwaj, in the year 2003 assaulted one fruit vendor in the area of Azadpur Delhi and case FIR No. 280/03 was registered in PS Adarsh Nagar and applicant/accused with coaccused persons was charge sheeted. Thereafter he joined the gang of Amit @ Babloo who was operating in Delhi and neighboring states. On 28.1.06, applicant/accused along with coaccused Amit @ Babloo, Savinnder @ Chota Raja, Gurbachan Singh, Neeraj @ Hemant went to the meat shop of one Rajesh in the area of State V Amit @ Babloo etc. FIR No.299/09 PS Narela Page No. 4 of 6 Narela and fired in broad day light to create terror amongst the general public in which one worker of shop namely Onkar Singh received injuries and FIR no.57/06 u/s 307/506/34 IPC was registered in PS Narela. Applicant/accused is also involved in supplying illicit liquor in Narela and he was arrested for supplying of illegal liquor in FIR no.73/09 PS Narela. Hence as per prosecution case, to prevent the unlawful activities of organized crime syndicate MCOCA was invoked against the accused/applicant and also other members of organized syndicate vide FIR no.299/09 i.e present case.
8. The perusal of record shows that cognizance has been taken against the applicant/accused in FIR no.57/06, which is with accused Amit @ Babloo who is gang leader and coaccused Savinnder. The coaccused Amit @ Babloo has involved in 24 cases which include murder, dacoity etc. and coaccused Savinnder has involved in 15 cases. He may have been acquitted in case FIR No.57/06, but merely on this ground it cannot be said that Section 3 of MCOCA is not attracted against the applicant/accused. There are other cases pending against the applicant/accused in which cognizance has been taken. The applicant/accused himself is involved in 5 cases. The case is at initial stage. The another argument of Ld. Counsel that primarily he has only one case with gang leader coaccused Amit @ Babloo is not tenable State V Amit @ Babloo etc. FIR No.299/09 PS Narela Page No. 5 of 6 because even one case is sufficient to attract Section 3 of MCOCA as held in case Narender Kumar V State, (Supra) which is a bail application of coaccused of this case, Hon'ble High Court while dismissing the anticipatory bail application has held that the person who is himself not involved in more than one offence, as a member of syndicate would fall within the ambit of Section 3 MCOCA while relying upon the judgment Govind Sakharam Ubhey V State of Maharashtra & ors., 2009 (3) Bombay CRI 144.
9. At this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie there is no evidence against the applicant/accused to proceed u/s 3 of MCOCA because applicant/accused has acted as a member of the syndicate of Amit @ Babloo. As per Section 21 (4) (b) of MCOCA bail can be granted to an accused unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
10. Hence, from the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no reasonable ground to believe that accused had not committed the offence u/s 3 of MCOCA or that he will not commit an offence in future. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground for grant of bail and same is hereby dismissed.
Announced in open court (SANJEEV KUMAR) Dt. 13.05.2013. ASJ01, NORTH, ROHINI, DELHI State V Amit @ Babloo etc. FIR No.299/09 PS Narela Page No. 6 of 6