TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 accumulation of considerable illicit assets, both movable and immovable, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi), [(2023) 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 be 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. The only case cited against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 has highlighted that over the past ten years, the court of competent jurisdiction has 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, 2016. 4.5 Pertinently, the Applicant, after his arrest in the impugned FIR, has been involved in FIR No. 477/2019 under Sections 387/34 IPC, P.S. Narela Delhi, in which he has been charge-sheeted. Furthermore, the Applicant has been involved in a large number of cases, in which he is either convicted or is presently under trial. Additionally, the Applicant's overall jail conduct has been unsatisfactory, pursuant to which he has been awarded several punishments by the jail authorities. ANALYSIS 5. The Court has duly considered the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. [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 bearing on the present case while dealing with denial of bail to those accused of offences under the NDPS Act: "On account of the strict language of the said provision very few persons accused of certain offences under the Act could secure bail. Now to refuse bail on the one hand and to delay trial of cases on the other is clearly unfair and unre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Bureau of Investigation, [(2022) 10 SCC 51] where the Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of earlier decisions dealing with prolonged incarceration and delay in trials. The Court clarified that the mandate under Section 436A of the CrPC, requiring release of an undertrial on bail if the trial is not concluded within a stipulated period, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920] the 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 material placed on record would reveal that for a period of the last six years, out of 102 dates, the accused has not been produced before the Court either physically or through virtual mode on most of the dates. On the last date, we had put a query to the learned counsel appearing for the State as to why the charges were not f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48/149/216/120B IPC PS Sadar, Narwana, Haryana Convicted, Life imprisonment 2. 27/2015 307/353/186/420/412/473/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act PS Mohana, Sonipat RI for 7 years 3. 81/2015 302/307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act PS Mundka, Delhi PT, NDOH - 9.05.2025 (on bail) 4. 477/2019 387/34 IPC PS Narela, Delhi PT, NDOH - 31.5.2025 (on bail) 5. 55/2016 3/4 MCOC Act PS Crime PT, NDOH - 17.4.25 6. 408/2010 364A/365/387IPC PS Narnaund, Haryana Acquitted 7. 47/2011 364A/386/174A/120B/34 IPC PS South campus Delhi Acquitted 8. 1335/2014 302/307/392/397/34 IPC PS Begumpur Acquitted 9. 960/2014 307/34 IPC PS Kanjhawla Acquitted 10. 116/2015 392/452/411/34 IPC &25/27 Arms act PS Ranhola, Delhi Acquitted 17. A review of the Applicant's criminal record indicates that he has either been acquitted or is currently on bail in the majority of the cases registered against him. Significantly, the only case considered by the authorities at the time of granting sanction under MCOCA was FIR No. 47/2011, P.S. Dhaula Kuan, in which the Applicant had already been acquitted prior to the registration of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ential ingredients required for an offence under MCOCA- continuing unlawful activity and membership in an organized crime syndicate with the intent to gain pecuniary benefits-are not satisfied in his case. However, at this stage, the Court is not inclined to engage in a detailed examination of the merits of the case or conduct a mini-trial to determine whether the offence against the Applicant is made out. It must, however, be emphasized that the provisions under MCOCA are invoked specifically pursuant to "continuing unlawful activity" committed by the accused. In the present case, the Applicant was not involved in any of the eight prior FIRs considered by the Prosecution for the registration of the current FIR, nor was he named in any of the additional 23 FIRs that the Prosecution relied upon after the investigation concluded. 22. The only FIR that implicates the Applicant is FIR No. 47/11, P.S. Dhaula Kuan, in which he was acquitted well before the registration of the impugned FIR under MCOCA. A perusal of the approval granted under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA reveals that the Joint Commissioner of Police, while recording his observations in the approval, acknowledged the Applic....