NARENDER KUMAR Vs. STSTE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 299/2009 under Section 3 of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short MCOCA).

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was only involved in one case in the year 2003 wherein he was acquitted in the year 2004. Further, after the alleged association in the sole FIR registered against the Petitioner in the year 2003, the Petitioner has had no association with the main accused Amit @ Babloo. Even as per the FIR No. 68/2003 under Section 302/201/120B IPC and 25 Arms Act the Petitioner had no direct association with Amit @ Babloo. Since there is no illegal activity committed by the Petitioner after 2003 it cannot be said that he was involved in continuing illegal activity. Further, no cognizance of any offence qua the Petitioner has been taken after 2003. In view of the fact that the Petitioner was only involved in one case wherein also he has been acquitted, the essential ingredients of Section 3 MCOCA that there should be more than one charge-sheet filed against the person in the preceding 10 years is not made out. Since the necessary ingredients of Section 3 MCOCA are not fulfilled, the anticipatory bail application is maintainable and the Petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned APP on the other hand contends that Section 21 (3) is a complete bar to the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered for offence punishable under MCOCA. The proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been completed against the Petitioner and proceeding under Section 83 Cr.P.C. are going on. The fact that the Petitioner has been acquitted in FIR No. 68/2003 has no bearing on the involvement for an offence punishable under MCOCA. Further the requirement of Section 3 MCOCA is that there should be more than one charge-sheet in the preceding 10 years against the syndicate and not against each individual of the syndicate. Since the necessary ingredients of Section 3 are made out in the present FIR, the present petition seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable and hence the same be dismissed.