SATENDER PAL SINGH @ TWINKLE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('CrPC') seeking regular bail in FIR No. 4 of 2006 under Sections 387/506/34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), 25/54/59 of Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ('MCOCA') registered at Police Station Special Cell, NDR.

(2.) THE charge sheet in the aforementioned case was filed on 30th May 2006 against the Petitioner and charges were framed against him for the above offences on 26th July 2007. Eight witnesses including all the public witnesses have been examined. Three of eight witnesses (PWs 1, 4 and 7) including the Complainant have been declared hostile. It is stated in the petition that even one of the police officials examined as a prosecution witness, ASI Ramesh Kumar, has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is pointed out that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 2nd February 2006. He has been granted interim bail on many occasions and has not violated the conditions on any occasion whatsoever.

(3.) SECONDLY , it is submitted that in terms of Section 2 (d) the offence under MCOCA would be attracted only when the "continuing unlawful activity" is by the Petitioner as a member of an organized crime syndicate in respect of which more than one charge sheet has been filed "within the preceding period of ten years" before a competent court and that court has taken cognizance of such offence. He refers to a list of cases involving the petitioner as produced by the prosecution and submits that only those cases in a period of ten years prior to the invocation of MCOCA were relevant. In the said period, from 1996 onwards, the Petitioner has been acquitted in all the cases except three which are pending trial and which includes the present case. It is submitted that the cases in which the Petitioner has been acquitted ought not to be considered for the purpose of determining whether the offences under MCOCA stands attracted, as that would work to the prejudice of the Petitioner. According to the petitioner a desperate attempt has been made by the prosecution to rely upon the bank statements of the Petitioner's mother's account to show that proceeds of crime were deposited there benami for the Petitioner's benefit.