DATTATRAY KRISHNAJI GHULE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 09-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DA TI A TRAY KRISHNAJI GHULE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 9, 2007 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ. AND D.K. JAIN, J.] 
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999; ss. 3, 21, 24 and 
34/Code of Criminal Procedure, 197i ss. 438 and 439: 
Organized crime-Gang of criminals-Printing of counterfeit stamp 
and selling thereof-Accused police officers allegedly entering into criminal 
compiracy with head of a gang-Arrested member of rival gang-Fabricated 
a false case-Supreme Court directing CBI to investigate--Arrest of appellant 
police officers under provisions of MCOCA-Grant of bail-Conditions-
D Held: Since provisions of MCOCA invoked, in addition to other 
considerations, limitation imposed in terms of s. 21 (4) have to be borne in 
mind by the Court while granting bail-Allegation leveled against accused 
police officers may not per se be sufficient to bring home an offence falling 
under s.3(2) of MCOCA-Hence, it is a fit case to grant bail to both the 
accused police officers. 
E 
Appellants were police officers at the relevant time. They allegedly 
foisted a false criminal case against some persons in collusion with criminals 
engaged in unlawful activities relating to printing of counterfeit stamps and 
other documents and sale thereof. After investigations, three charge-sheets 
were filed and ultimately when the matter came up before this Court, the Court 
F direc:ted that the investigations in the case be transferred to the C.B.I. As a 
result of fresh inve~tigations by the C.B.I. cases were also registered against 
the appellants-police officers allegedly on the ground that despite having come 
to know about the illegal activities of the criminals appellants conspired with 
them to aid and abet the organized crime syndicate headed by one of them to 
G carry on their illegal activities. They neither arrested th1!m nor carried out 
search at the offices of criminals nor did seal his property with the intention 
to extract pecuniary benefits. They deliberately framed two persons of the rival 
gang and showed false recovery from one of them and also destroyed/fabricated 
evidence by entering into criminal conspiracy with the members of the gang 
H 
384 
) 
DA IT;\ TRAY KRISHNA.II GHULh. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
3 85 
": 
by misusing their official position. Appellants filed bail application, which was A 
rejected by Single Judge of the High Court. Hence the appeals. 
Appellants contended that no inference can be drawn on the basis of the 
material on record that they had conspired or abetted commission or 
facilitation of the crime with which main accused or other co-accused were 
associated; that in the charge-sheet filed against them there were no B 
allegations that they had indulged in "continuing unlawful activities" within 
the meaning of Section 2(l)(d) of MCOCA or have committed "organised 
crime" within the meaning of Section 2(l)(e) ofMCOCA; that there is not an 
iota of evidence against them to hold that they belong to an "organised crime 
r · syndicate" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(1) of MCOCA; that Section 3 C 
of MCOCA cannot be invoked against them; that on account of the alleged 
acts of omission and/or commission, at the most only Section 24 of MCOCA 
may be attracted, for which offence the maximum punishment provided is three 
years' rigorous imprisonment and they having already spent more than two 
years in judicial custody they are entitled to be enlarged on bail; and that 
some similarly situated accused have already been granted bail by this Court. D 
Respondent submitted that there is enough evidence on record to show 
that the appellants had knowingly facilitated and abetted the organised crime 
syndicate to continue their unlawful activities and therefore, in the teeth of 
rigours of Section 21(4) of MCOCA, the appellants cannot be released on 
~ 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l.1. Since the provisions ofMCOCA have been invoked in the 
instant cases, in addition to the considerations, which normally weigh with 
the court in granting bail in non-bailable offences, the limitations imposed in 
the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of MCOCA have to 
be borne in mind. [Para 1 l [ (389-A-B] 
Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2007] 
I SCC 242, referred to. 
1.2. What needs to be considered before granting bail to accused is 
whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that they are not guilty of the 
two offen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.