CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. PRADEEP BHALCHANDRA SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This Appeal by Special Leave by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenges the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent, at the relevant time, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The respondent was arrested in connection with criminal cases registered in what has come to be known as the "stamp scam". The respondent is arrayed as accused No. 65 in C.R. No. 135 of 2002 initially registered at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune for different offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3 and 24 read with Section 2(1)(a)(d) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act ("MCOCA") read with Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges against him, inter alia, comprised of charges 58 to 70. The charges included the charge that the respondent had conspired to commit, to abet, to knowingly facilitate the commission of an organised crime, namely, the printing and sale of fake stamp papers and thereby was guilty of offences under the MCOCA, which carried a minimum punishment of imprisonment for five years but which could extend to life. The respondent was arrested on 7.1.2004 and subsequently by the order under challenge, he was enlarged on bail. It is this order granting bail that is the subject matter of this appeal at the instance of the prosecution.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the appellant C.B.I., as per the supplementary charge sheet, the respondent was being charged with rendering help and support on his own in the commission of an organised crime to the members of a organised crime syndicate by abstaining from taking the necessary action by himself and through his subordinate officers and that he had directed his subordinates that Telgi, the prime accused should not be kept in any lock up. This had facilitated the continuing of illegal activity by Telgi including the disposal of his ill-gotten properties even while he was in police custody. Telgi was also accorded special treatment by the respondent. According to learned counsel, in the circumstances, the High Court was clearly in error in granting bail to the respondent on its misconception of the scope of the relevant provisions of MCOCA and on its erroneous approach that connivance or deliberate inaction on the part of a police officer which facilitated the organised crime to flourish would not amount to an offence under Section 3 of the MCOCA. Learned counsel submitted that since a fundamental error had been made by the High Court, it was a proper case for this Court to interfere with the order.