Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in MCOCA Case: Jayshree Kanabar vs. State of Maharashtra (2025)

Date of the Judgment: January 2, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 13
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a High Court grant bail by assessing the evidence in a case involving the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question. The court, in this case, examined whether the High Court of Judicature at Bombay correctly granted bail to the accused in a MCOCA case. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing that bail in MCOCA cases must strictly adhere to the stringent conditions outlined in the Act.

Case Background

A long-standing civil dispute over land in Pune between the deceased, Rajesh Haridas Kanabar, and the families of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 led to this case. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appointed accused No. 3 as their agent to handle legal matters related to the property. Despite a seeming settlement, the accused believed the deceased was not cooperating. On October 5, 2020, during a revenue proceeding, the deceased was shot by accused No. 4, Hasmukh Patel, near the Collector’s office. He died in a nearby hospital. Initially, the charge sheet did not include MCOCA offenses. However, a supplementary charge sheet added MCOCA charges, alleging that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were part of an organized crime syndicate led by accused No. 4 and conspired to kill Rajesh Kanabar for unlawful gains.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the High Court conducted a mini-trial by assessing the merits of the case instead of focusing on the stringent bail conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The appellant contended that the High Court made observations that were akin to findings on the merits of the case, which is impermissible at the stage of considering a bail application. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s order did not reflect the necessary consideration of the MCOCA provisions.

Legal Framework

The case involves several legal provisions. These include Sections 302, 120B, 201, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. It restricts the discretion available under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court emphasized that when a special law like MCOCA has specific bail conditions, the power to grant bail is subject to those conditions. The court also noted that the materials collected during the investigation are not evidence at the stage of considering bail, and their admissibility is a matter for trial.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court’s order granting bail was a result of a mini-trial, with findings on the merits of the case.
• The High Court failed to consider the twin conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA.
• The High Court made observations that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had no direct or indirect contact with the gang leader, which was improper.
• The High Court’s findings would prejudice the prosecution and deprive them of a fair trial.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents contended that the MCOCA charges were added later to prevent bail.
• They were arrested on October 6, 2020, and granted bail only on November 6, 2023.
• The bail conditions were adequate to ensure their presence during the trial.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court correctly granted bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by adhering to the conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The court also considered whether the High Court had impermissibly delved into the merits of the case while deciding the bail application.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana & Anr. (2021) 6 SCC 230; 2021 INSC 265 – This case was cited by the appellant to argue that the High Court did not consider the stringent conditions for bail under MCOCA.

The Supreme Court also discussed the following legal provisions:

• Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) – This section imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in MCOCA cases.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – This section provides general powers to grant bail, which are restricted by Section 21(4) of MCOCA in cases involving MCOCA offenses.
• Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – This section was mentioned in comparison to MCOCA, noting that even PMLA has stringent bail conditions.

Judgment

Authorities:

The Supreme Court used Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana & Anr. (2021) 6 SCC 230; 2021 INSC 265* to highlight that the High Court did not consider the stringent conditions for bail under MCOCA. The Court also noted that the High Court had improperly assessed the evidence, which should only be done during trial.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court made specific findings about the roles of the accused, which was not appropriate at the bail stage. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have made observations such as:

• “It is seen on perusal of the record that accused No.1 and 2 did not directly or indirectly deal with the deceased at any point of time.”
• “There is no evidence even to suggest that accused Nos.1 and 2 were directly or indirectly in contact with the gang leader accused No.4.”
• “Perusal of the evidence indicates that accused No.3 was directly in contact with the gang leader and other members of the Crime Syndicate. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were not at all in their contact.”

The Supreme Court held that these observations were akin to findings on the merits of the case and were impermissible at the stage of considering a bail application.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s procedural errors in granting bail. The Court emphasized that the High Court had not properly considered the stringent conditions for bail under Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The Supreme Court also found that the High Court had impermissibly made findings on the merits of the case, which is not appropriate at the stage of considering a bail application. The Court was also concerned that the High Court had made specific findings about the role of accused No. 3, who was not even a party before the High Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations (70%), focusing on the procedural errors of the High Court and the proper application of MCOCA. Factual aspects of the case (30%) were secondary, used to illustrate the High Court’s misapplication of law.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must strictly adhere to the stringent conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA when considering bail applications.
• High Courts should not conduct a mini-trial or make findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage.
• The admissibility and evidentiary value of materials collected during the investigation are matters for trial, not for consideration during bail.
• Any observations by the High Court should not prejudice the prosecution.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The parties were directed to appear before the High Court on January 29, 2025. The High Court was requested to dispose of the bail application expeditiously, preferably within one month. The respondents were allowed to remain on bail with the same conditions as before until the High Court’s decision.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must strictly adhere to the conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA and should not make findings on the merits of the case while considering bail applications. This case reinforces the procedural safeguards in MCOCA cases. There is no change in the previous position of law but rather a reiteration of the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, emphasizing that the High Court had not properly considered the stringent bail conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA and had made findings on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to dispose of the case expeditiously.