Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Mr. Jain also urged that, on the question of admissibility of confessional statements under Section 18 of MCOCA, the MCOCA regime is stricter than the corresponding regime under the NDPS Act24, rendering the judgments under the NDPS Act inapplicable to a case under MCOCA.

15. Specifically on the question of prolonged incarceration, Mr. Jain submitted that the bail provisions in MCOCA are materially different from the corresponding provision in UAPA, and have been held to be "on a higher pedestal". In any event, Mr. Jain argued that several judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court make it clear that, in the case of special statutes incorporating conditions restricting bail, prolonged incarceration is not by itself a ground for release of an accused on bail. Reference to the said judgments is included at the appropriate juncture in this judgment.

Section 21(4) of MCOCA provides for a stricter regime, than Section 43D(5) of UAPA. Both in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali26 and Kekhriesatuo Tep & Ors. v. National Investigation Agency27, the Supreme Court has indicated that the test under MCOCA requires a much stronger degree of satisfaction, than the corresponding stipulation in UAPA. The key distinction, as analysed by the Court, lies in the difference in the formulation of the test: in UAPA, the Court must be satisfied that "there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true", whereas under MCOCA, the satisfaction required is that "there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence".

24. While these decisions clearly establish that grounds under Article 21 are indeed relevant, even while considering bail applications of persons accused under MCOCA, Mr. Jain has cited the following judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court which, according to him, suggest that Section 21(4) of MCOCA cannot be overridden:

i. In Jayashree Kanabar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.40, the judgment of the High Court granting bail to a MCOCA accused SLP (Crl.) No. 17295/2025, dated 13.01.2026.

29. The decision in Gulfisha Fatima, in my view, provides guidance on the approach to be adopted while adjudicating bail application under MCOCA also. Section 21(4) of MCOCA being on a "higher pedestal"

than Section 43D(5) of UAPA, I agree with Mr. Jain that, at the very least, the same principles would govern the interplay between Section 21(4) of MCOCA and the Article 21 rights of an accused. The apparently distinct lines of authority cited above can, in my view, be reconciled, by applying the ratio of Gulfisha Fatima.