Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. In the case of Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 2 SCC 475], the Supreme Court was considering the plea for being released on bail of an accused charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). It would be useful to reproduce the following observations in para 10, 13 and 14 of the said Judgment:

"10. Since the provisions of MCOCA have been invoked in the present case, in addition to the basic considerations, namely, the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with and reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, etc.; which normally weigh with the courts for granting bail in non-
bailable offences, the limitations imposed in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of MCOCA need to be kept in view while deciding whether or not the appellant is entitled to bail.
13. It would not be appropriate at this juncture to go into detailed examination of the alleged crime in order to arrive at a positive findings as to whether or not the appellant has committed offences under Section 3(2) or 24 of MCOCA.
What is required to be considered is whether in the light of the circumstances, enumerated above; (i) there is a reasonable ground to believe that the appellant is not guilty of the two offences he has been charged with under MCOCA, and (ii) that he is not likely to commit an offence under MCOCA while on bail.
14. We have considered the matter in the light of the inferences drawn by the High Court from the material on record and the role attributed to the appellant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the purported acts of omission and commission on the part of the appellant may not per se bring his case within the ambit of Section 3(2) of MCOCA. Nevertheless, the aforementioned circumstances do tend to indicate that as a public servant he had failed to take lawful measures under MCOCA, attracting the provisions of Section 24 of MCOCA. Having reached this conclusion and bearing in mind the fact that the appellant has been in judicial custody for over three years, the maximum period of sentence contemplated under Section 24 of MCOCA, we are of the view that the appellant deserves to be released on bail."