BABANRAO TUKARAM RANJANE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BABANRAO TUKARAM RANJANE 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
May 12, 2006 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 439 and 438(2)-
0rganised crime of printing and supplying fake stamps on large scale-
Allegation that Appellant, the Deputy Superintendent of Stamps, rendered 
help and support in commission of the crime and also failed to take action 
against members of the organised crime syndicate despite specific directions 
from his superiors-Appellant already in custody for more than 2 years and 
3 months-Held: On consideration of the relevant circumstances and taking 
note of the period for which appellant was in custody, Special Court directed 
to grant him bail on fulfillment of certain conditions-Maharashtra Control 
of Organised Crime Act, 1999-Sections 3(2), 3(5), 21(4) and 24-Penal 
Code, 1860-Section 120B. 
A case was registered against the Appellant under the provisions 
of IPC and Sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of Maharashtra Control of 
Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). It was alleged that Appellant, 
who was at the relevant time Deputy Superintendent of Stamps, was 
rendering help and support in the commission of organised crime of 
printing and supplying fake stamps on a large scale. He also allegedly 
failed to take action against two mem hers of the crime syndicate despite 
specific directions from his superiors. Appellant denied his involvement 
and sought bail, but the Special Court rejected his bail application. 
Challenging the said order of Special Court, Appellant submitted 
before this Court that no prima facie case for conviction under Section 
3(2) of MCOCA exists; that even if Section 24 of MCOCA is attracted 
on the basis that as a public servant, he failed to take action, the 
punishment was only 3 years and he having been in custody for more 
than 2 years and 3 months, was entitled to be enlarged on bail. 
On behalf of the CBI however, it was submitted that both Section 
3(2) as well as Section 3(5) of the MCOCA were clearly attracted and 
that the Appellant could not be enlarged on bail without reference to 
631 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Section 21(4) of the MCOCA. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not for this Court at this stage to go into a detailed 
discussion of the scope of MCOCA or discuss in detail the materials 
B 
against the appellant and the arguments for and against on merits. But 
this Court has to necessarily keep in mind the magnitude of the alleged 
crime and the consequences that have flowed from such a crime. As far 
as the appellant is concerned, at this stage this Court has only to 
consider whether he has made out a case for grant of bail. This Court 
c can neither be carried away by the catchy submission that 'bail and not 
jail' is the rule, nor can ignore the principle reflected by that catchphrase. 
On a consideration of the relevant circumstances obtaining and taking 
note of the period during which the appellant has been in custody, this 
Court is satisfied that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. 
Therefore, this Court, in reversal of the order of the Special Court, 
D 
directs that Court to enlarge the appellant on bail on his furnishing 
security to the satisfaction of that Court in a sum of Rs.I lac with two 
solvent sureties for the like amount and on his fulfilling the other 
conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC. This Court also imposes a further 
condition that the Appellant should report before the Investigating 
E 
Officer between 10.00 AM and 12.00 Noon every third Saturday of the 
month and surrender his passport, (or file affidavit, if he has none) 
before the Special Court if it is already not in its custody. (635-A-DI 
F 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 640 
of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.2004, of the High Court of 
Bombay, in Cr!. A. No. 2252/04. 
A.V. Savant, S.V. Deshpande and Mrs. Anuradha Rustagi for the 
Appellant. 
Sushi! Kumar, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Vikas Sharma, D.S. Mabra, 
Ashiesh Kumar and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. : I. Leave granted. 
BABANRAO TUKARAM RANJANE v. STATE [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 633 
2. The appellant challenges the order of the Special Judge of the 
Bombay High Court rejecting his application for bail under Section 439 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.