C.B.I versus PRADEEP BHALCHANDRA SAWANT AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 1077 · Decided: 17-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

C.B.I. 
A 
v. 
PRADEEP BHALCHANDRA SA WANT AND ANR. 
AUGUST 17, 2007 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 
B 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act-ss. 3 & 24 rlw 
_... 
2(l)(a){d)-Dy. Commnr. of Police arrested in the stamp scam case-
Allegation that he by his deliberate inaction facilitated organised crime of C 
printing/sale of fake stamp papers-Bail-Grant of, by High Court-
lnterference with grant of bail-Held: Contention, that High Court 
misconstrued scope of the Act and erred in thinking that deliberate inaction 
on part of responsible police officer would not amount to abetting commission 
of organised crime, may be having some substance-However, order of bail 
not interfered with-It is appropriate to leave it to the Trial Court to take D 
final view on .all questions after appreciation of evidence. 
Respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, was arrested in 
connection With the 'Stamp Scam' case. It was alleged that he by his deliberate 
inaction facilitated the organized crime of printing and sale of fake stamp 
papers to flourish and that he was guilty of offences under the Maharashtra E 
Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). Respondent was however enlarged 
on bail by the High Court. The present appeal challenges the ~aid order of 
the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is some merit in the submission of the appellant that 
the approach of the High Court leaves a lot to~ desired. There may be some 
substance in the argument that the High Court has not properly understood 
F 
the content of Section 3(2) and 3(3) of MCOCA and it was in error in thinking 
that deliberate inaction or studied negligence on the part of a responsible G 
police officer could not amount to abetting or knowingly facilitating the 
commission ofan organised crime. But, it is not proper for this Court to go 
into that question in detail in this proceeding, which is only an appeal against 
,., 
the grant of bail. After all, whatever is said in this order will not even control 
1077 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A the decision to be taken after the conclusion of the trial and it is appropriate 
to leave it to the court trying the case to take a final view on all the questions 
after the evidence has been let in. (Para 5) (1080-B, C, DJ 
1.2. The reasons given in an order granting bail can only be understood 
as supporting an order granting bail with only the consequences that flow 
B from it. The observations cannot control the decision to be taken after trial 
by the concerned court. [Para 51 (1080-E, F) 
RanjitSing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 
(20051 5 S.C.C. 294, referred to. 
C 
2. Appellant tried to highlight many alleged commissions and omissions 
on the part of the respondent and especially in his alleged treatment of Telgi, 
the kingpin in the crim_e concerned. Naturally, the respondent attempted to 
controvert the stand adopteji by the appellant and contended that there were 
no such acts of commission or omission on the side of the respondent and 
r 
. 
. 
D that it was a case where the respondent himself was only a subordinate officer 
not in a position to take some of the actions which are alleged to have been 
not taken by him. Here again, it is not proper for this Court to go into an 
analysis of the facts and circumstances. Suffice it to say that it is not 
necessary to interfere with the order granting bail to the respondent in this 
appeal against such grant. It is expected that the trial court would try the 
E case in accordance with law untrammelled by the observations in these orders. 
[Para 6) (1080-F, G, H; 1081-A) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 088 of 
2007. 
F 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 27.8.2004 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Borribay in Criminal Application No.1963/2004. 
Sushi! Kumar, R.K.Jain, ShekharNafde, Sandhya Goswami Adolf Mathew, 
Vinay Arora, Sanjay Jain, P.Parmeswatan, M.K. Kocharekar, Mrs. Anuradha 
Rustagi, S.Sonawane, Nilakanta Nay~k, S.V.Deshpande, Shivaji M. Jadhav, 
G Himanshu Gupta, Brij Kishor Sah, S.S.Shinde and Ravindra Kumar Adsure for 
the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
C.B.I. v. PRADEEP BHALCHANDRASAWANT [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.} 
1079 
2. This Appeal by Special Leave by the Central Bureau of Investigation A 
challenges the order of the High Court granting bail 

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