https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170043 MCOCA requires a prima facie showing of intentional aiding, active complicity or knowing facilitation for abetment or conspiracy; mere association, communication, negligence or administrative lapse is insufficient, and on the materials the appellant was not shown to have abetted or conspired in organised crime. Section 24 was construed strictly to apply only where a public servant intentionally renders help, abstains from lawful action, or avoids lawful directions in support of organised crime; the record disclosed no such culpability. Section 21(4) must be applied consistently with Article 21 and the presumption of innocence, so bail cannot be refused on an impossible standard of proof; on the facts, continued detention was unjustified and interim bail was allowed to continue. en-us Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2026 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170043 MCOCA requires a prima facie showing of intentional aiding, active complicity or knowing facilitation for abetment or conspiracy; mere association, communication, negligence or administrative lapse is insufficient, and on the materials the appellant was not shown to have abetted or conspired in organised crime. Section 24 was construed strictly to apply only where a public servant intentionally renders help, abstains from lawful action, or avoids lawful directions in support of organised crime; the record disclosed no such culpability. Section 21(4) must be applied consistently with Article 21 and the presumption of innocence, so bail cannot be refused on an impossible standard of proof; on the facts, continued detention was unjustified and interim bail was allowed to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170043