NANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioners are impugning the order whereby the regular bail granted to them under the provision of Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been cancelled, post a request put up by the prosecution, to add, in addition to the earlier sections under the Indian Penal Code, the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter 'the MCOC Act') after a sanction under Section 21 of the MCOC Act was received.

(3.) The learned Senior advocate Mr. Deshmukkh would submit that the petitioners were granted a regular bail and in the absence of any supervening circumstance or a breach of terms and conditions subject to which the bail was granted, it could not have been cancelled. He would submit that merely because the provision of the MCOC Act were invoked at a later point of time that would not constitute a supervening circumstance. Liberty ought not have been curtailed in the manner in which it had been done. There are circumstances to indicate that the petitioner is being falsely involved under a serious charge. There is material to prima facie demonstrate that the sanctioning authority was perhaps hand-in-gloves with the original informant. A tainted sanction is not a sanction in the eye of law.