Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The prosecution has collected the evidence, particularly the statement of the co-accused under Section 18 of the MCOC Act and booked the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the applicant has no concern with the so-called organized crime syndicate. He barely had acquaintance with the so-called leader of the said syndicate. He got acquainted with the said Kalani being a member of Karni Sena. The crimes were registered against him for social cause, and he has been acquitted of those crimes. He has been falsely implicated in the crime, only being acquainted with the said Kalani. He has not played any active role in the crime. Even in the earlier crimes, there was nothing against him. He is an agriculturist 921-ba-775-2023.odt and a social worker. Section 18 of the MCOC Act has not been strictly complied with. There is absolutely no evidence against the applicant to indicate that he has committed the crimes for the organized crime syndicate. The co-accused Sunil, who has played a similar role, has been granted bail. Hence, he deserves parity. Learned counsel for the applicant argued at length and tried to convince the Court that, in this case, there was no cogent and reliable evidence to believe that he was a member of the organized crime syndicate and had any interest in the economic benefit or was the beneficiary of the same. He would argue that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 2019. The applicant explained that he knew Mr. Kalani, but he was never involved in any alleged crimes. The trial is going on at a snail's speed. Therefore also, the applicant deserves bail.

921-ba-775-2023.odt

6. The prosecution mainly relied on Section 18 of the MCOC Act. When the learned APP put into service Section 18 of the MCOC Act, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that neither the confession was recorded as prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 18 nor sent to the Magistrate nor the person from whom the confession was recorded was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the statement of the co-accused is receivable in evidence as per Section 18, was not in strict compliance with the said section.

7. Section 18 pertains to the confessions made to the police officer by an accused in the crime. It has to be taken into consideration, and it is made admissible in the trial. After having gone through the papers, the learned APP could succeed in satisfying the Court that sub-section (4), (5) and (6) of Section 18 have been complied with. The order of the Magistrate on the application of the prosecution for supplying the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 18(6) of the said Act has been referred to. As per the said order, the confession was sent to the Special Court. Learned counsel for the applicant complained that such statements were not part of the charge sheet. This seems to be learnt for the first time to him also. He has a right to ask for such confession before the trial Court by way of an appropriate application. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the co-accused had confessed before the police officer as 921-ba-775-2023.odt provided under Section 18 of the MCOC Act, and it has been strictly complied with. So at this juncture, its admissibility cannot be denied, or it cannot be decided whether it was admissible or inadmissible. While considering the bail, the Court has limited scope. Rather it is not the jurisdiction of the bail Court to evaluate the evidential value of such a statement. That statement goes against the applicant.

8. As far as parity is concerned, co-accused Sunil has been granted bail. The order granting him bail is placed before the Court. However, that order did not comment on Section 18 of MCOC Act. The law point has been raised before the Court, and the learned APP satisfied the Court that the confessional statement of the co-accused under Section 18 is admissible, and that is the prima facie material against the applicant showing his involvement in the crime. Therefore, the learned APP and the counsel for the complainant are correct that the applicant cannot claim parity though the co-accused has been granted bail.