GAJENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No. 27/2009 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (in short "MCOCA") registered at PS Special Cell, Delhi. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is in custody since 8th March, 2009. He was allegedly apprehended from near the metro station in a car along with the co-accused Raj Kumar. The necessary ingredients of offence punishable under Section 3 of MCOCA are not made out as the Petitioner is allegedly involved only in one case, that is, FIR No. 11/2009 at the time when they were apprehended. Even as per the case of the prosecution he has been allegedly associated with the Syndicate since middle of the year 2008 only. The other case alleged, that is, case FIR No. 429/2008 under Sections 394/ 120B IPC registered at Haridwar the Petitioner has already been acquitted as the witnesses failed to identify him. Even in the sanction sought for registering the present case there was no mention of the FIR No. 11/2009 under Sections 186 /353 /307 IPC. Some telephonic intercepts are being used against the Petitioner however, none of the conversation show that the Petitioner was involved in the working of the syndicate. The Petitioner is being sought to be connected allegedly on the basis of some conversion of his mother with the co-accused. There is no evidence that the Petitioner has obtained any pecuniary advantage. Reliance is placed on Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2005 4 AD(SC) 363 , Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 1 SCC 242, State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal, 2007 4 SCC 171, Shridhar Sumant Vagal Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2007 12 SCC 514.

(2.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the facts of FIR No. 11/ 2009 dated 8th March, 2009 under Sections 186 /353 /402 /420 /467 /468 /120B /34 IPC and 25 /26 Arms Act, PS Special Cell, Delhi were put up to the competent authority for seeking approval under Section 23(1) of the MCOCA is evident from the order granting approval itself wherein the details of the case are clearly mentioned. Nothing was concealed from the competent authority. The fact that the Petitioner has been acquitted in FIR No. 429/2008 of robbery along with other members of the syndicate still attracts the provision of Section 3 of the MCOCA. From a perusal of the intercepted conversation it is evident that the ill-gotten money of the syndicate was being invested in properties, banks accounts trucks, cars etc. The Petitioner is an active BC of PS Paharganj, Delhi who has been involved in a number of cases. The Petitioner has already been convicted in case FIR No. 454/1997 under Sections 392 /397 /34 IPC registered at PS Kamla Market and awarded an imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine. Reliance is placed on Union of India Vs. Shiv Shanker Kesri, 2007 7 SCC 798.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.