Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mcoc act in Shabhana Parveen Inayatullah Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2021Matching Fragments
CRIWP1959-2021.DOC accused in respect of whom charge-sheet has been lodged on 12th February, 2021.
4. We have considered the aforesaid preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition, in the present form. In our view, the issue which really arises for consideration is the invocation of the provisions contained in MCOC Act, qua the petitioner. Indisputably, the competent authority had granted prior approval as envisaged by Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act on 30th November, 2020, wherein the petitioner herein was named as an active member of the organized crime syndicate headed by Rashid Rehman Shaikh (A1). We thus propose to examine the core issue of justifability of the invocation of the provisions of MCOC Act against the petitioner and, consequently, the relief of pre-arrest bail sought by the petitioner.
CRIWP1959-2021.DOC
12. Mrs. Pai, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would urge that the fact that the name of the petitioner does not fnd mention in the frst information report is of no consequence. It is trite that FIR is not an encyclopedia. Mere non mentioning of the names of the accused does not detract materially from the veracity of the prosecution. Taking the Court through the number of cases registered against the Rashid (A1), who heads an organized crime syndicate, Mrs. Pai submitted with tenacity that no fault can be found with invocation of the provisions of MCOC Act, in the case at hand. In any event, according to Mrs. Pai, the question as to whether the approval under Section 23(1)(a) or for that matter the sanction under Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act has been justifably granted is a matter for trial. At this stage, the Court would not be justifed in delving into this aspect of the matter. Since the offences punishable under MCOC Act have been prima facie made out, according to the learned PP, the learned Special Judge was justifed in negativing the prayer to grant pre- arrest bail as the interdict contained in sub-section (3) of Section 21 which excludes the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"), came into play.
CRIWP1959-2021.DOC However, apart from the fact that the petitioner is the relative of Rashid (A1), at this juncture, prima facie, there is next to no material to establish the nexus between the petitioner and the organized crime syndicate.
16. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal,1 wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of strict interpretation of the provisions of MCOC Act in view of the stringent nature thereof. It was in terms observed that as the provisions of MCOC Act seek to deprive a citizen of his right to freedom at the very initial stage of the investigation and make it extremely diffcult for him to obtain bail, it is necessary to examine whether the investigation from its very inception has been conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 62 and 63 are instructive and thus are extracted below:
20. This propels us to the consideration of the prayer of the petitioner to exercise the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail. Once we record a prima facie satisfaction that the invocation of the provisions under MCOC Act qua the petitioner is not justifable, then the embargo under Section 21(3) of the MCOC Act may not come into play and the entitlement of the petitioner for the grant of the relief of pre-arrest bail would hinge upon considerations which generally weigh in the exercise of the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail.