Hansraj v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No. 446/2011, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, New Delhi under Section 3 of The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (henceforth referred to as 'MCOCA').

2. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had asserted that petitioner is behind bars since 5th November, 2012 and since the chargesheet in this case has not been filed by respondent-State within 90 days, therefore, he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. To assert so, reliance was placed upon decisions in Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State GNCTD and Ors. 2013 Crl.L.J.200; Aslam Banalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra (1992) 4 SCC 272; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. Vs. 2013:DHC:1651 State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087; Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1986 SC 2130; Bhagyesh @ Bablu Nitin Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in Landmark Judgments on Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 at page 640, Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SCC 1910 and Dinesh Yadav and anr. Vs. State and Ors. 2002 Crl.L.J.1067.

3. Upon notice, respondent-State had filed status report disclosing petitioner's involvement in 65 criminal cases not only in Delhi, but in other States including Gujarat, Haryana, U.P. and of petitioner running a criminal syndicate for pecuniary benefit and of recording petitioner's confessional statement under Section 18 (1) of MCOCA. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State had submitted that petitioner is a threat to society at large and he will intimidate witnesses or evade the process of law if released on bail.

4. Sessions Court's order of 7th March, 2013 declining statutory bail to petitioner is quite detailed one. It reveals that afore-noted decisions cited before this Court have been considered in the right perspective and while applying the ratio of Apex Court's decision in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087, extension of time has been granted to prosecution to file the charge-sheet. Status report of respondent-State discloses that charge-sheet in this case has been filed on 2nd March, 2013 and the matter is coming up before trial court on 3rd April, 2013.

5. It has to be kept in mind that statutory right to seek bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. has been qualified by proviso to Sub-Section 2 (b) of Section 21 of MCOCA in view of the gravity of the offence. Abovesaid provision reads as under: -

6. Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of Sessions Court's order declining statutory bail to petitioner while granting time to prosecution to file charge-sheet and the status report, I find that petitioner's implicit reliance upon Apex Court's decision in Sayed Mohd. (supra) is of no avail as proviso to Sub-Section 2 (b) of Section 21 of MCOCA was not cited nor considered in Sayed Mohd. (supra). What had weighed with the Apex Court in Sayed Mohd. (supra) to grant statutory bail was that the custody of the accused was held to be illegal even prior to filing of application under Section 167 (2) of Cr. P.C. Similarly, reliance placed by petitioner's counsel upon decisions in Aslam (supra), Chaganti Satyanarayana (supra), Uday Mohan Lal (supra) and Dinesh Yadav (supra) is of no avail as in these decisions simplicitor right to statutory bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr. P.C. was considered and proviso similar to Sub-Section 2 (b) of Section 21 of MCOCA was not the subject matter of consideration in aforesaid cited decisions.

7. Even the Single Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Bhagyesh @ Bablu Nitin Shah (supra) granting bail for an offence under MCOCA is of no avail as in aforesaid case time was granted to complete investigation, without notice to accused. It is not so, in the instant case. Infact, prosecution's request seeking extension of time to file charge-sheet as noted in the impugned order, reads as under: - "The public prosecutor, in his report has sought extension of 30 days for completion of investigation on the ground that the physical verification as well as the verification qua the ownership of the three properties located at Dilshad Garden, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad and South Anarkali Extn. has to be done."

8. During the course of hearing on this application, nothing worthwhile was urged by petitioner's counsel which could indicate that the time granted under Section 21 (2) (b) of MCOCA by the court concerned to file the charge-sheet was uncalled for or was not justifiable and so application of prosecution to extend time to file charge-sheet being within statutory period, has been rightly accepted by Sessions Court and so, denial of statutory bail to petitioner is well justified.