BHARAT SHANTILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail preferred by one of the three accused under C.R.No 112 of 2000 registered on 12th December 2000 for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 387, 115 of IPC and under the provisions of Section 3(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) and Section 5 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, for brevity, hereinafter referred to as M.C.O.C. Act. While the accused No.1 by name Nazim Rizvi was arrested on 13th December 2000, second accused by name Abdul Rahim Khan was arrested on 21st December 2000.

(2.) THIS applicant came to be arrested on 8th January 2001. He has been arrested for offence of abetment under section 3(2) of the MCOC Act. The provisions of the MCOC Act under which this applicant was arrested are attended with severe punishment. This applicant as well as the other accused were arrested on the ground that they were having association with the organised crime syndicate and/or were otherwise knowingly facilitating the commission of an organised crime. After certain information was received by the prosecuting agency, authorisation was obtained on 23/10/2000 for tapping of certain telephone numbers on which date those telephone numbers were intercepted and the prosecuting agency has collected the intercepted material from that date onwards. So far as this applicant is concerned the prosecuting agency has relied on the intercepted material collected by the prosecuting agency mainly on 27th October 2000. Not only the name of the applicant transpired in the conversation with the organised crime syndicate but he had allegedly participated in the conversation with a member of the organised crime syndicate. This applicant was, therefore, called by the prosecuting agency to report to the Police on 15th December and 21st December 2000 and thereafter by a summons dated 7th January 2001 he was asked to report to the police on 8th January 2001 on which date he came to be arrested. He had earlier filed bail application in this Court being Criminal Application No.93 of 2001. In that application on behalf of the applicant the main grievance made was that he was not furnished with the copies of the FIR and the remand application and, therefore, he was not in a position to argue or make effective representation for the purpose of his release on bail. In that application the prayer for bail was not pressed but directions were sought against the prosecuting agency to furnish to the applicant the copies of the FIR and the remand application. The said directions were given subject to the deletion of the portion which was required to be kept secret under the Act. While disposing of that application liberty was given to the applicant to make fresh application to the appropriate Court. Accordingly the applicant again preferred an application for bail to the Special Judge which was rejected by order dated 6/7th February 2001 and thereafter the present application came to be filed in this Court.

(3.) SO far as the provisions of bail are concerned the Act has made departure from the normal law of grant of bail and lays down strict conditions to be fulfilled before a person accused of any offence under the provisions of this Act is entitled to be released on bail. The main conditions for release of a person accused of any offence under the MCOC Act are laid down in sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 21 of the Act. Since this applicant is not alleged to have been previously involved or arrested in connection with the offence under this Act, the only conditions which would be applicable to this applicant are the ones which are laid down under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act which reads as follows: