TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal syndicate, operating primarily in Delhi NCR and adjoining states. The syndicate is stated to be involved in a series of grave offences, including murder, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, robbery, and attempt to murder, which are committed through acts of violence, intimidation, and other unlawful means. These offences were carried out with the objective of deriving pecuniary benefit and securing undue economic advantage. The gang's sustained criminal activities have instilled fear in the region. The members of this syndicate, acting either individually or in concert, operate as part of, or on behalf of, an organised crime network. 2.2 The impugned FIR was registered following a proposal for approval to invoke the provisions of MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act in light of the consistent and continuing criminal activities of the syndicate. Manoj Morkheri, acting in concert with his associates, is engaged in organised criminal activity within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA, primarily for pecuniary gain. They constitute an organised crime syndicate as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. Their continued engagement in criminal conduct has resulted in acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23) 18 SCC 166] the Court affirmed that bail can be granted if there is an undue delay in the trial, even under the stringent provisions of special statutes like the NDPS Act. Reliance is also placed on the judgement in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb. [(2021) 3 SCC 713] 3.2 Lack of Evidence to satisfy twin conditions under MCOCA: To invoke Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA, the Prosecution must establish two essential elements: (i) continuing unlawful activity, and (ii) the involvement of the accused in an organised crime syndicate for pecuniary gain [Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/SC/0449/2015] Neither of these elements is made out in the present case against the Applicant. 3.3 Absence of evidence to establish Continuing Unlawful Activity and membership in an Organized Crime Syndicate: To establish continuing unlawful activity and membership in an organized crime syndicate, it is imperative that there are multiple chargesheets in which the competent court has taken cognizance. In the present case, the Applicant is not involved in any continuing unlawful activity, nor is he a member of any organized crime syndicate. Although the charge order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being granted bail in all ongoing cases. Therefore, the Applicant will only be able to avail himself of the parole granted in that matter if he is released on bail in the present case. 3.6 Confessional Statements-Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The evidence against the Applicant in the present case consists of the confessional statements of co-accused individuals Manoj, Anil, Parvesh Grewal, and Rohit under Section 18 MCOCA, as well as the testimonies of Paramvir Rana and Investigating Officer Dinesh Kumar. Of these, both Paramvir Rana and Dinesh Kumar have already deposed in favour of the Applicant. Further, the confessional statements of the co-accused cannot be relied upon as evidence against the Applicant, especially given that these statements are not substantiated by any corroborative evidence and were also not true or voluntary. These statements were immediately retracted and denied by the co-accused persons, stating that they had not provided any statement under Section 18 MCOCA, and that their signatures were obtained on blank papers under threat. These statements, therefore, do not have any evidentiary value in terms of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, as per the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stice. 4.3 In this case, the proposal to invoke the provisions of MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act against the Applicant and his associates was initiated by the ACP, Crime Branch Delhi. This request led to the registration and investigation of the case under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA. According to the proposal, several cases from 2011 reported incidents where the Applicant and his associates were involved in committing serious offences such as murder, kidnapping, extortion, and other unlawful activities. These acts were carried out using violence, intimidation, and other illegal means with the sole objective of obtaining pecuniary benefits or undue economic advantage. 4.4 For the purpose of establishing "continuing unlawful activity" under Section 2(1)(d), "organised crime" under Section 2(1)(e), and "organised crime syndicate" under Section 2(1)(f), the Prosecution highlighted in the proposal before the competent authority that over the past ten years, the court of competent jurisdiction had taken cognizance of more than one chargesheet against this crime syndicate. The summary of the cases referred to in the proposal are set out in the chargesheet dated 17th October,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rials are prioritized and concluded within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, although Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, these provisions must be balanced with the fundamental right to personal liberty of the accused, the presumption of innocence, and the societal interest in ensuring the right to a speedy trial. [Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC Online SC 929] 9. In this context the observations in the recent decision of Mohd. Muslim, are apposite, where the Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is pari materia to Section 21(4) of MCOCA, held that protracted incarceration as an undertrial, even in cases involving serious offences, must weigh heavily in favour of granting bail, particularly when such delay is not attributable to the accused. The relevant observations are excerpted below: "12. This court has to, therefore, consider the appellant's claim for bail, within the framework of the NDPS Act, especially Section 37. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, this court made certain crucial observations, which have a bearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of law curtail the right of an accused to secure bail, and correspondingly fetter judicial discretion (like Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in the present case), this court has upheld them for conflating two competing values, i.e., the right of the accused to enjoy freedom, based on the presumption of innocence, and societal interest - as observed in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan ("the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal .... "). They are, at the same time, upheld on the condition that the trial is concluded expeditiously. The Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab made observations to this effect. In Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India again, this court expressed the same sentiment, namely that when stringent provisions are enacted, curtailing the provisions of bail, and restricting judicial discretion, it is on the basis that investigation and trials would be concluded swiftly." [Emphasis Supplied] 10. This view was reaffirmed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of witnesses remained to be examined. In light of this, it was held that prolonged detention without trial was contrary to the principles of justice, holding that extended detention, without any foreseeable progress in the case, necessitated a reconsideration of the accused's bail application. In such circumstances, the Court granted bail to the accused. 13. Likewise, in the case of Siddhant v. State of Maharashtra, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3798] the Supreme Court considered a bail application under MCOCA, and reiterated that excessive pre-trial incarceration, particularly in the absence of any meaningful progress in the proceedings, infringes the fundamental rights of an accused. Relying on the decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, he Court observed that the right to a speedy trial is an essential facet of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It was held that prolonged incarceration, without trial, amounts to punitive detention prior to adjudication, which cannot be countenanced within our constitutional framework. In Siddhant, where the accused had already spent six years in custody without framing of charges, the Court observed: "10. The materi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the Applicant's case, especially in the context of plea of parity. The Applicant has drawn attention to the fact that co-accused Sumit @ Sam and Anil Kumar @ Ganja, both of whom have multiple prior criminal involvements (seven and nine, respectively), have already been granted bail. By contrast, the Applicant's name figures only in FIR No. 47/2011, P.S. Dhaula Kuan, in which he was acquitted even before the registration of the present FIR under MCOCA. It has also been brought to the Court's attention that co-accused Parvesh Grewal, against whom similar allegations were levelled and whose case rests on comparable evidentiary footing, has already been discharged in the present proceedings. If a co-accused, against whom the evidence is of the same character and attributes, has either been granted bail or discharged, it would be manifestly unjust to deny the Applicant the benefit of parity. 16. At this juncture, it is also crucial to emphasize that the Applicant is currently serving a life sentence in FIR No. 215/2010, P.S. Bahadurgarh, Haryana. In the said case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has by order dated 12th April, 2019, granted the Applicant parole for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es failed to consider the fact that the Applicant had already been acquitted in the aforementioned case. 19. It is also pertinent to highlight that FIR No. 215/2010, P.S. Bahadurgarh, Haryana, in which the Applicant is convicted and currently serving a life sentence, was not considered by the authorities when granting approval under MCOCA, indicating that that this conviction did not factor into their conclusion that the Applicant was involved in the offense under MCOCA. Consequently, the sole basis for implicating the Applicant in the present FIR appears to be his involvement in FIR No. 47/11 and the alleged criminal activities of Manoj Morkheri and his associates, who are purportedly part of a larger crime syndicate. This, at the very least, prima facie casts a serious doubt in favour of the Applicant. 20. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the Applicant shall be released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of INR 50,000/- along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/ ....