MCOCA bail test: nexus with the syndicate and prima facie role in laundering proceeds defeated bail.

Under MCOCA, the requirement of more than one charge-sheet under Section 2(d) is assessed by reference to the syndicate's continuing unlawful activity, not each member individually. A facilitator or abettor may also fall within the Act if the material shows nexus with the organised crime syndicate and assistance in continuing the crime. Challenges to confessional statements under Section 18, procedural compliance, retraction, and sanction under Section 23 were treated as matters for trial and not as grounds to displace the bail test under Section 21(4). On the material, the applicants were found prima facie involved in channelising extorted funds and laundering crime proceeds, so bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to bail under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 despite the allegations of membership of an organised crime syndicate, facilitation of disposal of crime proceeds, and objections to the reliance on confessional statements and sanction orders.

Analysis: The Court held that the requirement of more than one charge-sheet under Section 2(d) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 is to be seen with reference to the continuing unlawful activity of the organised crime syndicate and not with reference to each individual member. It further held that a person may attract the Act even as a facilitator or abettor if the material shows a nexus with the syndicate and assistance in the commission or continuation of organised crime. The Court also held that objections regarding the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 18, compliance with procedural requirements, retraction, and the legality of sanction under Section 23 are matters for trial and cannot, at the bail stage, displace the statutory test under Section 21(4). On the material noticed, the Court found that the applicants were prima facie involved in channelising extorted funds, arranging benami purchases, and assisting the syndicate in parking and laundering crime proceeds, and therefore the twin conditions for bail were not satisfied.

Conclusion: Bail was declined to all three applicants, as the Court found no reasonable ground to hold that they were not guilty or unlikely to commit offences while on bail.

---