Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus, it is alleged that applicant is involved in unlawful activities.

6. On completion of investigation, both the applicants along with several others have been chargesheeted for offences under various enactments including MCOC Act before the learned Special Judge under MCOC Act at Mumbai. Both the applicants applied for bail before the learned Special Judge. By his order dated 31st July, 2009 the learned Special Judge held that charges against the applicants under the MCOC Act did not survive and that they would have to be discharged from those offences. He directed that the case be placed before regular Sessions Court and therefore, rejected the applications for bail.

8 BA 333-2011

7. The State challenged the order discharging the accused from offences under MCOC Act before the High Court. A Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment reported as State of Maharashtra Vs. Pragyasinh Chandrapalsinh Thakur & ors, reported at 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2800 partly allowed the applications by order dated 19th July, 2010 and directed the Special Judge to decide the bail application expeditiously. Paras 1 and 2 of the Judgment recount charges levelled and states about discharge of accused from charges under the MCOC Act. Paras 3 to 6 refer to the orders passed by the trial Judge. Paras 7 and 8 refer to provisions of the MCOC Act and what constitutes continuing unlawful activity.

Para 9 refers to Judgments of Supreme Court upholding constitutional validity of MCOC Act and a Judgment interpreting the term 'unlawful means'. Para 10 deals with scheme of MCOC Act. Para 11 recounts as to how MCOC Act came to be invoked and para 12 refers to the 9 BA 333-2011 findings of the learned Judge of Special Court in the impugned order. Paras 13 to 17 recount arguments advanced. In para 18 the Division Bench limited the scope of its scrutiny in the following words:

16 BA 333-2011

10. The learned Counsel for the applicants first submitted that since question of applicability of MCOC Act was left open by the Division Bench by para 18 of the Judgment(Supra) to be decided by the Special Judge, and had also held that it could be decided even while considering bail applications, it was incumbent upon the learned Special Judge to consider all aspects of applicability of MCOC Act. He submitted that there was no continuing unlawful activity and therefore, the learned Judge should have held (as he had done earlier) that provisions of MCOC Act did not apply. The learned counsel, therefore, sought to show as to how provisions of MCOC Act were not applicable to the present case.