Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Now, the present Application is filed by the State on the ground that after releasing these Non-applicants on bail they have misused the liberty and committed the similar type of offence in respect of which Crime No. 406/2023 was registered under Sections 394, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. The Crime No. 406/2023 was registered on the basis of a report lodged by Akash Nandkishor Shukla, wherein it is alleged that the present Non-applicants approached to him and forcefully snatched his golden chain as well as the cash amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and threatened him and left the place. Another Crime No. 603/2023 was also registered under Section 294, 506(2), 323 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. Thus, the 5 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt contention of the State is that after releasing the said Non-applicants on bail they misused the liberty, and therefore, the Investigating Officer has sent the proposal to the Superior Officers considering the continuous involvement of the present Non-applicants in the illegal activities for invoking the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short "the MCOC Act") and while granting approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act, the Superior Authority of the Investigating Agency i.e. the Additional Commissioner of Police North Region Nagpur City had considered and has gone through the proposal and documents submitted in support of the proposal by the Police Inspector, Police Station Ganeshpeth, Nagpur for addition of Sections 3(1)

(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 4 of the MCOC Act with the Crime No. 144/2023 of Police Station Ganeshpeth for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 387, 504, 506(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC. The sanctioning Authority has considered that it has gone through the papers on the basis of record and evidence with respect to the offences more than one charge-sheet has been filed against them in which offences having prescribed punishment of 3 years or more have been considered and 6 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt cognizance has been taken by the Competent Authority. According to the record it seems that ultimate intention of the accused persons is to gain pecuniary benefit establishing supremacy in the locality and other advantage by committing such serious offences. The preventive actions taken against them have failed to produce them and on recording the satisfaction that there is a crime syndicate and enough material evidence and records to give prior approval for investigation under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 4 of the MCOC Act, the approval was granted to investigate the matter to the Investigation Officer by invoking the provisions of the MCOC Act, and therefore, the provisions of the MCOC Act are invoked and the application was filed by the State for cancellation of bail before the District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The learned District Judge-1, after hearing both the sides rejected the application of the State and hence this Application by invoking Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed.

13. In Sarang Arvind Goswamy's case, accused Sarang was arrested in connection with Crime No.212/2004 for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, he was released on bail. Subsequent to his release on bail, the provisions of special enactment, namely MCOC Act, were invoked against said Sarang. After such invocation, an application was moved by the prosecution for cancellation of bail on the assertion that as the provisions of special enactment have been applied, earlier bail cannot be continued and the 12 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt same is required to be cancelled in view of the stringent provisions of Section 21 of the MCOC Act.

17. In my view, the prosecution has rightly applied for cancellation of bail by approaching to the Court by moving an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on assertion that the provisions of the MCOC Act have been applied against the present Non-applicants. The ground that the Non-applicants have misused the liberty is also made out by the State. As a consequence of which, the bail 14 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt granted in favour of the Non-applicants, relating to the offences under the Indian Penal Code, will be of no avail. In view of invocation of the provisions of the special enactment, the prosecution was having a right to take the Non-applicants into custody in relation to the newly registered offences under the MCOC Act and as observed by this Court in Sarang Arvind Goswamy's case cited supra, the Non-applicants can be released on bail only if the Non-applicants were to satisfy rigours of the provisions of the special enactment.