GOKUL BHAGAJI PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 08-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOKUL BHAGAJI PATIL 
v. 
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 8, 2006 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999-Sections 3(2), 
21 (4) & 24-Printing of counterfeit stamps and stamp papers by Organised-
Crime Syndicate-Raid conducted by Appellant-Police Inspector and his 
C team-Even though the printing press, where stamps were being printed, was 
identified, Appellant allegedly facilitated continuation of unlawful activities 
by the Syndicate by deliberately not arresting the prime accused and not 
sealing the printing press and hence guilty of offences under MCOCA-
Charges under s.3(2) & 24-Judicia/ custody-Entitlement of Appellant to 
D bail-Held, entitled-Purported acts of omission and commission on part of 
Appellant may not per se bring his case u/s.3(2)-Nevertheless, as a public 
servant, he failed to take careful measures under MCOCA, attracting s.24-
Maximum period of sentence contemplated under s.24 is three years-Appellant 
deserves bail as he has already been in judicial custody for more than three 
E years. 
Appellant was posted as a senior Inspector in a Police Station. Based 
on certain information received by the Police Station about printing of 
fake revenue and postal stamps, raids were conducted by Appellant and 
his team. It is alleged that although the printing press where counterfeit 
F stamps and stamp papers were being printed had been identified but 
Appellant and his Sub-Inspector neither sealed the said premises nor seized 
the machines and instead ensured that the prime accused (Telgi) was not 
arrested and the counterfeit stamps seized were not sent for examinatio~. 
It is alleged that by helping and facilitating the Organised Crime Syndicate 
of Telgi in continuing unlawful activities and deliberately abstaining from 
G taking lawful measures under the Maharashtra Control of Organised 
Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) against Telgi and his syndicate, Appellant 
committed offences punishable under Sections 3(2) and 24 of the MCOCA. 
Based on the investigations, a case was registered against the Appellant 
H 
374 
GOKUL BHAGAJI PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
375 
who was arrested and since then he is in judicial custody. Taking into A 
consideration the gravity of charges levelled against the appellant and, inter 
alia, observing that there was no reason to believe that he is not guilty of the 
offences alleged against him, as contemplated under S.21(4)(b) of MCOCA, 
the Special Judge dismissed his bail application. That order was affirmed by 
the High Court. 
B 
In appeal to this Court, it is contended that no inference can be 
drawn from the material on record that the appellant was a party to the 
conspiracy or had abetted commission or facilitation of the crime with 
which Telgi or other co-accused were associated and that the 
circumstances relied upon against the appellant, namely, the alleged failure C 
either to arrest Telgi or to seal the printing press could, at the highest, 
bring his case within the ambit of Section 24 and not under Section 3(2) 
of the MCOCA. It is further contended that Appellant having already been 
in j•1dicial custody for more than three years, the maximum punishment 
provided under Section 24, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Since the provisions of MCOCA have been invoked in the 
present case, in addition to the basic considerations, namely, the nature 
D 
and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; reasonable 
apprehension of witness being tampered with and reasonable possibility E 
of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial etc; which 
normally weigh with the courts for granting bail in non-bailable offences, 
the limitations imposed in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of MCOCA need 
to be kept in view while deciding whether or not the appellant is entitled 
to bail. (378-F-G) 
Chenna Boyanna Krishna ·Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1358 of 2006), decided by S.C. on 
8.12.06, referred to. 
F 
2.1. It would not be appropriate at this juncture to go into detailed G 
examination of the alleged crime in order to arrive at a positive finding 
as to whether or not the appellant bas committed offences under Section 
3(2) or 24 of MCOCA. What is required to be considered is whether in 
the light of the circumstances (i) there is a reasonable ground to believt! 
that the appellant is not

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