Bombay High Court has set a precedent by granting bail to four individuals previously accused under the stringent act. This ruling, delivered by Justice NJ Jamadar, brings to light the nuanced legal requirements for prosecution under MCOCA and the rights of the accused in such cases.
In a decision that underscores the critical importance of legal sanction under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA), the Bombay High Court has set a precedent by granting bail to four individuals previously accused under the stringent act. This ruling, delivered by Justice NJ Jamadar, brings to light the nuanced legal requirements for prosecution under MCOCA and the rights of the accused in such cases.
The case, involving four persons arrested by the Mumbai police in September 2023 for a conspired robbery, took a significant turn when the competent authority under MCOCA refused to grant sanction to prosecute. This refusal led to a pivotal observation by the court: without the necessary sanction, the provisions of MCOCA cease to apply, thereby affecting the continuation of detention for the accused under this act.
Justice NJ Jamadar, in his judgment, articulated the legal principle that the absence of sanction from the competent authority essentially nullifies the case under MCOCA.
“In that event, strictly speaking, there would be no case involving an offence under MCOCA, 1999. Sans sanction by the competent authority, the Special Court cannot take cognizance of the offences under the MCOCA. If previous sanction of competent authority is not granted, the extension which was granted by the Special Court, in the wake of the invocation of the provisions contained in MCOCA, must cease to operate as the MCOCA provisions would itself cease to have any application,”
the Court observed.
The timeline of events leading to the High Court’s decision began with the arrest of the accused and the subsequent request by the police for an extension of time to file the chargesheet before the expiry of the 90-day statutory period. The special court under MCOCA granted this extension, allowing time until December 18, 2023. However, the turning point came on December 12, 2023, when the investigating agency’s request for sanction to prosecute was rejected by the competent authority, prompting the transfer of the matter back to the judicial magistrate from the special court.
Following the rejection of sanction, the accused sought default bail before the Magistrate on December 13, 2023. Despite the chargesheet being filed the next day, the application for default bail was rejected based on the Magistrate’s interpretation that the special MCOCA judge’s extension of the investigation period negated the right to default bail. Justice Jamadar, however, disagreed with this reasoning, clarifying that the right to seek default bail arises immediately after the refusal of sanction, provided the chargesheet has not been filed.
This judgment not only led to the release of the accused on bail but also highlighted the intricate balance between the law’s stringent provisions and the fundamental rights of individuals. Advocates Pankaj More, Nitin Kamble, and Sukrut Mhatre represented the applicants, while Additional Public Prosecutor Ranjana Humane appeared for the State.
The Bombay High Court’s decision in this case serves as a critical reminder of the legal safeguards in place to protect the rights of the accused, especially under laws as severe as MCOCA. It emphasizes the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements, such as the sanction for prosecution, which play a pivotal role in the judicial process and the administration of justice.
