STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAJESH JAYSINGLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal application is filed by the State for cancellation of bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane who is also Special Judge for cases under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 ("MCOC Act" for short) on 21st January 2006 in CR no.194 of 2005 wherein along with offences alleged under IPC, the accused who are respondents before me (accused nos.2 and 4) have been charged with offences punishable u/s.3(1)(2) and 3 of MCOC Act.

(2.) THIS application was argued before me on the earlier occasion and I had invited attention of the learned APP to the fact that this application is for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Special Judge of the Designated Court. However, in this application the grounds for cancellation are that when the accused were originally produced before the learned Designated Judge, the learned Judge refused Police Custody Remand and within a period of two days, granted judicial custody. In such circumstances, there was no opportunity to interrogate the accused properly. Consequently, the investigations have suffered.

(3.) THE petitioner-State has challenged the order dated 3rd January 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge which is an order refusing police custody remand. This criminal revision application has been withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. I was informed that a writ petition was filed to challenge that order. In such circumstances, I had pointed out to the learned APP that the application for cancellation cannot contain identical grounds. This is not an application to set aside the order dated 3rd January 2006 but a subsequent order enlarging the accused nos.2 and 3 on bail. The application for cancellation of the bail must contain reasons and grounds to support such a prayer. The same are hopelessly lacking in the instant application. With the able assistance of learned APP I have perused the grounds and all that is urged is that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Designated Judge failed to appreciate and take into consideration the provisions of MCOC Act and to maintain confidentiality of the investigation and necessity of police custody of accused for custodial interrogation.