Parity in bail and MCOCA bar rejected where the applicant's distinct role and prima facie organised-crime links were shown.

Parity in bail was rejected because it is not applied mechanically; the applicant was not similarly placed as the co-accused, who were said to have played only secondary or post-incident roles, while the applicant was alleged to have had a direct and active role in the organised crime network. The plea that the Skoda car had been sold earlier was also rejected at the prima facie stage, as the transfer was incomplete, registration remained in the applicant's name, and effective control was not disproved. The material further disclosed reasonable grounds to believe involvement in organised crime, attracting the statutory bar under MCOCA. Bail was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the principle of parity with co-accused already released on bail; (ii) whether the applicant's plea that the Skoda car was sold prior to the could negate prima facie involvement at the bail stage; and (iii) whether the material disclosed reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was guilty of offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, so as to attract the statutory bar on bail.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the principle of parity with co-accused already released on bail.

Analysis: Parity in bail matters is not mechanical. It depends on the nature of the role attributed, the degree of participation, and the material against each accused. The co-accused who were enlarged on bail were stated to have rendered comparatively secondary or post-incident assistance, whereas the applicant was alleged to have played a more direct and active role in the organised crime network, including logistical support and facilitation of criminal activity. The applicant was therefore not similarly placed with the co-accused relied upon for parity.

Conclusion: The claim for parity was rejected and bail could not be granted on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant's plea that the Skoda car was sold prior to the could negate prima facie involvement at the bail stage.

Analysis: The alleged sale was supported only by an incomplete agreement, with part payment stated to have been made and the balance remaining unpaid. No transfer of registration was effected with the Regional Transport Office, and the vehicle continued to stand in the applicant's name. On these facts, the asserted divestment of possession and control could not be accepted conclusively at the bail stage, and the prosecution version that the vehicle remained under the applicant's effective control was treated as more probable prima facie.

Conclusion: The applicant's plea regarding the vehicle was not accepted for bail purposes.

Issue (iii): Whether the material disclosed reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was guilty of offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, so as to attract the statutory bar on bail.

Analysis: The record included allegations of active participation in the organised crime syndicate, financial transactions through the applicant's business entity linked to the proceeds of unlawful activity, harbouring of syndicate members, use of a proxy digital connection to conceal identity, and continued association with criminal operations. These circumstances were held to disclose a prima facie case of aiding and abetting organised crime, harbouring members, membership of the syndicate, and deriving benefit from crime proceeds. In view of the bar under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, bail could not be granted unless no reasonable grounds existed for believing the accused guilty, which condition was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The statutory bar applied and the applicant was not entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: The application for regular bail failed because the applicant was found to have a distinct and grave role, the vehicle-related defence was not accepted at the prima facie stage, and the MCOCA bar on bail was attracted on the material before the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters governed by a special statute containing a statutory embargo, parity with co-accused does not apply mechanically, and bail must be refused where the record discloses reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is prima facie involved in organised crime and related offences.

---