The Supreme Court emphasized that granting bail under special laws with restrictions must depend on fulfilling the required conditions. Setting aside the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail in a strict MCOCA case, the bench noted that courts cannot examine evidence in detail to form a definite view on the accused’s role during bail hearings. The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to legal standards in such cases. The court highlighted that bail decisions must align with the specific provisions of special laws.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that when a specific provision in a special enactment imposes an restriction on granting bail, the authority to release an accused must adhere to the stipulated conditions.
In a case involving Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), a bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol set-aside the Bombay High Court’s bail order for two accused, Rahul Ananda Kamble and Rupesh Ananda Kamble, linked to the killing of Rajesh Haridas Kanabar on October 5, 2020, in Pune.
Read Also: “Excessive Bail is No Bail”: Supreme Court
During the proceedings, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra, representing Kanabar’s wife, challenged the High Court’s November 6, 2023 decision. They argued that the High Court had failed to determine whether the twin conditions outlined in Section 21(4) of MCOCA were satisfied, instead improperly assessing the evidence and concluding that the accused had not played any role in the shooting.
They contended that this approach undermined the prosecution’s right to a fair trial.
The respondents claimed that the charges under MCOCA were added later and that they were granted bail with adequate conditions after being jailed shortly after the incident. Upon reviewing the case, the bench observed that the High Court’s ruling did not adequately consider the provisions of Section 21(4) of MCOCA.
They noted that, while the Supreme Court previously stated that strict bail provisions do not Invalidate constitutional courts’ powers to grant bail based on fundamental rights violations, the High Court’s decision was not based on such grounds. Instead, it wrongly assessed whether there was enough evidence against the accused.
The bench highlighted that matters of evidence and admissibility should be addressed during the trial, not during bail considerations. They expressed concern that the High Court’s findings could prejudice the prosecution’s case and deprive it of a fair trial.
Additionally, they pointed out that the High Court made findings regarding an accused who was not even a party to the case.
Consequently, the bench remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh evaluation in accordance with the law, ideally within a month.
Case Title
Jayshree Kanabar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
