Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Per contra, learned SPP has opposed the petitions. He submits that accused nos.1 & 2 have a notorious background and they were involved in multiple criminal cases registered for heinous offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364A, etc. Considering that these accused persons are involved in committing organized crimes and also since the charge sheet witnesses are threatened by them, the provisions of KCOCA has been invoked against them in the present case. In most of the earlier criminal cases registered against them, they have been acquitted for the reason that charge sheet witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution during the course of investigation has produced material which prima facie shows that accused nos.1 & 2 were in contact with the other accused persons and they had provided vehicles and financial assistance to the assailants. Because of the rivalry between two gangs, multiple murders have taken place and the deceased is one of the victims of the rivalry between two gangs. In the event the accused are enlarged on bail, the NC: 2025:KHC:27284 HC-KAR chances of they committing similar offences and also threatening the material charge sheet witnesses cannot be ruled out. There are eye-witnesses to the incident in question who have spoken about the role of the assailants. The accused persons have confessed to their crime and the confession of the accused is admissible under Section 19 of the KCOCA. The weapons and blood stained clothes were seized from the assailants after their arrest and the DNA test report supports the case of the prosecution. Merely for the reason that accused persons are in custody for a period of nearly two years, their bail applications cannot be entertained having regard to the gravity of offence and also the background in which the incident in question has taken place. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petitions.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused nos.1 & 2 has submitted that in all the earlier criminal cases registered against accused nos.1 & 2, they have been now acquitted and only one criminal case registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 IPC and under the provisions of the KCOCA is pending as against them.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27284 HC-KAR

10. The material on record would go to show that accused nos.1 & 2 were involved in multiple criminal cases registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 IPC, etc., and even the provisions of KCOCA has been invoked against them on multiple occasions. In the earlier criminal cases registered against them, they were enlarged on bail.

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27284 HC-KAR Arms Act and Section 3 of KCOCA, and the said case is undisputedly pending as on this date. In the said case, they were on bail as on the date of the alleged incident.

13. Section 22(5) of KCOCA provides a further limitation in addition to the limitation provided under Section 22(4) of KCOCA. Section 22(5) of KCOCA states that accused shall not be granted bail if it is noticed by the court that he was on bail in an offence under KCOCA or under any other Act on the date of the offence in question. A similar provision under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS BHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & OTHERS - (2018)13 SCC 5, and in paragraphs 62 & 64 of the said judgment, it is observed as under:

14. From a reading of the aforesaid observations in Bharat Shanti Lal Shah's case supra, it is very clear that restriction under Section 22(5) of KCOCA cannot be made applicable against a person who is on bail in a criminal case registered against him not connected with KCOCA. But such a restriction would apply to a person who was on bail in a case earlier registered against him under the provisions of KCOCA as on the date of registration of the present case.

- 17 -