Supreme Court Quashes Bail Granted by High Court in MCOCA Case: State of Maharashtra vs. Pankaj Jagshi Gangar (2021) INSC 725

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 725

Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a High Court grant bail as an interim measure in a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a law, especially when the accused has previously been denied bail by lower courts? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, highlighting the importance of procedural correctness and the gravity of offenses under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The court examined whether the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was correct in granting interim bail to an accused charged under MCOCA, despite a prior rejection of bail by a Special Court and a withdrawal of a similar plea before a Single Judge of the same High Court.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR registered against several individuals, including Iqbal Ibrahim Kaskar, Israr Jamil Sayyed, and Mumtaz Ejaj Shaikh, for offenses under Sections 384, 386, 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused were part of an organized crime syndicate led by international gangster Chhota Shakil. The investigation also found that the respondent, Pankaj Jagshi Gangar, was allegedly involved in providing funds to this syndicate and running a Matka business in Mumbai. Consequently, the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) were invoked.

The Special Judge (MCOCA), Thane, rejected Gangar’s bail application on 26.03.2018, after considering the prosecution’s evidence. Subsequently, Gangar approached the High Court with a bail application, which was withdrawn after a Single Judge of the High Court was not inclined to grant relief on 13.07.2018. Following the withdrawal, Gangar filed a writ petition before a Division Bench of the High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 23(1)(a) and 21(4) of MCOCA, and seeking interim bail.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Pankaj Jagshi Gangar, initially filed a bail application before the Special Judge (MCOCA), which was rejected on 26.03.2018. Subsequently, he filed a bail application before the High Court, which was heard by a Single Judge. After the Single Judge indicated that he was not inclined to grant bail, the application was withdrawn on 13.07.2018. Following this, the respondent filed a writ petition before a Division Bench of the High Court, challenging the vires of Sections 23(1)(a) and 21(4) of the MCOCA and seeking interim bail.

The Division Bench of the High Court admitted the writ petition and, as an interim measure, granted bail to the respondent on 29.01.2019. The High Court also observed that the sanction to invoke MCOCA was bad in law. This order was challenged by the State of Maharashtra before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), specifically:

• Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA: This section deals with the prior approval required to invoke the provisions of MCOCA. The respondent challenged this section as being arbitrary and unconstitutional.
• Section 21(4) of MCOCA: This section imposes twin conditions for granting bail to an accused under MCOCA. The respondent contended that these conditions are unconstitutional and violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
• The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are Sections 384 (extortion), 386 (extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt), 387 (putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Maharashtra):

• The High Court erred in granting bail as an interim relief, especially considering the gravity of the offenses and the fact that the Special Judge/MCOCA Court had previously rejected the bail application.
• The High Court should not have interfered with the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner of Police to invoke MCOCA at the interim stage.
• The High Court failed to consider that a detailed charge sheet had been filed against the accused, indicating the seriousness of the allegations.
• The High Court’s decision effectively acquitted the accused of MCOCA offenses at the interim stage, which is not permissible.
• The respondent is an active member of an organized crime syndicate and is involved in arranging funds for the purchase of weapons and information.
• The High Court’s order is unsustainable in law, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others.

Arguments by the Respondent (Pankaj Jagshi Gangar):

• The High Court rightly held that the sanction to prosecute the accused under MCOCA was flawed and lacked tangible material.
• The respondent has been on bail since 2019 and has not misused his liberty.
• The High Court was justified in granting bail based on the available material.

The innovativeness of the argument by the Respondent was to challenge the vires of the MCOCA provisions, which was used as a guise to get bail from the High Court after failing to get it from the Single Judge.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in releasing the respondent – accused on bail by way of interim relief while considering the writ petition challenging the vires of Sections 23(1)(a) and 21(4) of the MCOCA.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra, setting aside the High Court’s order granting interim bail to the respondent. The Court held that the High Court had erred in granting bail by way of interim relief, especially considering the seriousness of the offenses, the prior rejection of bail by the Special Court, and the subsequent withdrawal of the bail application before the Single Judge of the High Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s order had effectively acquitted the accused of MCOCA offenses at the interim stage, which is impermissible. The Court also deprecated the practice of forum shopping by the accused, who withdrew his bail application before the Single Judge and then filed a writ petition before the Division Bench to seek the same relief.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [CITATION]: The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize that the High Court should not have released the accused on bail by way of interim relief, especially when the accused had not been able to get bail before the Single Judge and had withdrawn the bail application.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s order and the gravity of the offenses alleged against the respondent. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The High Court should not have granted bail as an interim measure, especially when the accused had previously been denied bail by the Special Court and had withdrawn a similar plea before the Single Judge of the same High Court.
• The High Court’s order effectively amounted to an acquittal of the accused on MCOCA charges at the interim stage, which is not permissible.
• The High Court did not adequately consider the seriousness of the offenses alleged against the accused, which include being part of an organized crime syndicate and arranging funds for illegal activities.
• The Court deprecated the practice of forum shopping, where the accused withdrew his bail application before the Single Judge and then filed a writ petition before the Division Bench to seek the same relief.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue was not about cancellation of bail due to misuse of liberty, but about quashing a wrong order granting bail.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%), focusing on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s decision and the correct application of legal principles regarding interim relief and bail. The factual aspects (30%), such as the accused’s alleged involvement in organized crime and the specific details of the case, played a secondary role in the Court’s reasoning.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court should not have granted bail as an interim measure, especially when the accused had previously been denied bail by the Special Court and had withdrawn a similar plea before the Single Judge of the same High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s order effectively amounted to an acquittal of the accused on MCOCA charges at the interim stage, which is not permissible. The Court also deprecated the practice of forum shopping, where the accused withdrew his bail application before the Single Judge and then filed a writ petition before the Division Bench to seek the same relief.

The Supreme Court considered the seriousness of the offenses alleged against the accused, including being part of an organized crime syndicate and arranging funds for illegal activities. The Court emphasized that the High Court did not adequately consider the gravity of these offenses.

The Court rejected the argument that the respondent had been on bail since 2019 and had not misused his liberty. The Supreme Court clarified that the issue was not about cancellation of bail due to misuse of liberty, but about quashing a wrong order granting bail.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the judgment. The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, instead focusing on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s order and the gravity of the offenses alleged against the respondent.

The Supreme Court stated, “By the impugned order, the High Court has virtually acquitted the accused for the offences under the MCOCA and that too at the interim stage.”

The Supreme Court also stated, “Even such an observation at the interim relief stage on the sanction to prosecute/invoke the provisions of MCOCA was not warranted.”

The Supreme Court further stated, “The aforesaid can be said to be forum shopping by the accused which is highly deprecated and which cannot be approved.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should exercise caution while granting interim bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses and when the accused has previously been denied bail by lower courts.
• Interim orders should not effectively grant final relief, such as acquitting an accused at the interim stage.
• Courts should discourage forum shopping, where litigants attempt to seek the same relief from different benches of the same court.
• The gravity of the offenses and the prior rejection of bail by lower courts are crucial factors to consider while deciding on bail applications.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to surrender forthwith and face the trial. If the respondent failed to surrender, the concerned Court was directed to secure his presence by issuing a non-bailable warrant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not grant bail as an interim measure, especially when the accused has previously been denied bail by lower courts and has withdrawn a similar plea before a Single Judge of the same High Court. This decision reinforces the principle that interim orders should not effectively grant final relief and that courts should discourage forum shopping. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its position that the High Court should not have released the accused on bail by way of interim relief, and that such an order was wrong and liable to be set aside. There is no change in the previous position of law, but a reiteration of the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Pankaj Jagshi Gangar underscores the importance of procedural integrity and the need for High Courts to exercise restraint while granting interim relief, particularly in cases involving serious offenses under special statutes like MCOCA. The judgment emphasizes that interim orders should not preempt the final adjudication of cases and that forum shopping is a practice that must be discouraged. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order, directing the accused to surrender and face trial.