Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8 APEAL-545-16-Pragya Singh.doc

12. After the Charge-Sheet to this effect was filed by ATS on 20 th January 2009 in the Special Court, Government of India, vide its order dated 1st April 2011, transferred the investigation of the case to National Investigation Agency, (for short, "NIA"). Accordingly, on 13th April 2011, NIA re-registered the offence in respect of the said incident as C.R. No.5/2011.

13. Meanwhile, Accused No.9-Prasad Purohit had filed Bail Application No.42 of 2008 in the Special Court on 3 rd December 2008. While deciding the said Bail Application, the Special Court, vide its order dated 31st July 2009, discharged the present Appellant and all the co-accused from the offences under MCOC Act and directed to transfer the case to the regular court at Nashik, as per Section 11 of the MCOC Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred Criminal Appeal bearing No.866 of 2009 before this Court under Section 12 of the MCOC Act. The said Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19 th July 2010 and, accordingly, the impugned order of the Special Court dated 31st July 2009 was set aside and the case was restored to the file of the Special Court under MCOC Act for decision on merit. As a result, Appellant preferred fresh application for bail, which came to be rejected by the Special Court vide its order dated 25 th September 9 APEAL-545-16-Pragya Singh.doc 2012. The Criminal Appeal No.1305 of 2013 preferred by her against the said order also came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 4th April 2014.

14. Meanwhile, the order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.866 of 2009, restoring the application of the provisions of MCOC Act, came to be challenged by the present Appellant and Accused No.9-Prasad Purohit in Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by its common order dated 15 th April 2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1969-1970 of 2010, decided all the Appeals filed by the Appellant and other co-accused raising doubt about applicability of the provisions of MCOC Act to these Accused, except Accused No.7-Rakesh Dhawde. The Hon'ble Apex Court, accordingly, while disposing of these Appeals, restored the Bail Application of Accused No.9-Prasad Purohit, bearing Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2008, to the file of the Special Court for a fresh decision on its own merit, excluding the applicability of the provisions of MCOC Act. In the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that, the Appellant is also entitled for the same relief of consideration of her Bail Application on its own merits, excluding the provisions of MCOC Act.

Applicability of MCOCA Provisions

49. At this stage, it may also be necessary to consider the applicability of the provisions of the MCOC Act to the present case. According to learned counsel for the Intervenor, though NIA has dropped the charges under the provisions of MCOC Act, accused in the case, including the Appellant, cannot be discharged from the said offences, as already this Court has taken cognizance of the case under the provisions of MCOC Act. According to learned counsel for the Intervenor, even in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 15th April 2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1169-1970 of 2010, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, though raised doubt about the applicability of the provisions of the MCOC Act, to the present Appellant and other co-accused are concerned, except Accused No.7- 31 APEAL-545-16-Pragya Singh.doc Rakesh Dhawde, these accused are not discharged from the offences registered under MCOC Act. In such circumstances, according to him, no clean-chit can be given to the Appellant or other co-accused from the offences registered under the MCOC Act.

35 APEAL-545-16-Pragya Singh.doc

55. Once it is held that the provisions of the MCOC Act are not to be considered for deciding the Bail Application, then the next question arising for consideration is, 'whether the confessional statements of Accused Nos.7, 10 and 12 can be taken into consideration for deciding these Bail Applications'?

56. As stated above, according to learned counsel for the Intervenor, these confessional statements can be taken into consideration even if the provisions of MCOC Act are held to be not applicable, as that observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court pertains only in respect of applicability of Section 21(b) of MCOC Act, which pertains to stringent provisions of bail. According to learned counsel for the Intervenor, the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court nowhere reflects that, while deciding the Bail Application of the Appellant, confessional statements of co-accused should be excluded from consideration. According to learned counsel for Intervenor, further observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.96 make it clear that the Bail Applications of Appellant and other co-accused were to be decided not on the touch-stone of Section 21(b) of MCOC Act, but on its own merits, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has then referred to the parameters for granting bail, as laid down in the 36 APEAL-545-16-Pragya Singh.doc landmark decisions of State of U.P., through CBI, Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, 2005 (8) SCC 21, and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 921.