BHASKAR DESAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is arrested on 20th July 2006. It appears that Dy.S.P. Mrs.Karandikar is the original complainant. The F.I.R. has been registered with Wada Police station. They have been investigated by Vasai police station. The allegations against applicant as also others are that they have committed offences punishable under section 3(i), (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (for short MCOCA) 1999. On 18th July 2006, the applicant applied for bail in the Court of Special Judge (MCOCA), Thane. Bail application No.1200 of 2006 filed by Rajesh Gatalia and Application No.1313 of 2006 preferred by the applicant herein were heard together and the learned Judge has proceeded to pass a common order rejecting the same.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate appearing for applicant invites my attention to the order of the learned Judge and more particularly paras 7 and 10 thereof. In his submission, the offence of "organised crime" as defined under M.C.O.C.A. postulates "continuing unlawful activity" which in turn is defined in section 2(d) thereof. For an unlawful activity to be continuing in nature, the Legislature has provided that the same must culminate into a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of organised crime syndicate or as a member of such syndicate and in respect of which more than one charge sheets have been filed before the competent court within the preceding period of 10 years and that the court has taken cognisance of such offences. In his submission when the learned Judge has taken on record the report of I.O. and has observed that it is evident from a perusal thereof that no charge sheet has been filed against the accused, although number of C.Rs. have been registered at various police stations, then, the activity cannot be said to be "continuing unlawful activity" so as to come within the definition of the said term as also the term "organised crime". Consequently, the MCOCA itself was inapplicable and such being the case, applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) PARAS 7 and 10 of the impugned order read thus:-