THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus VISHWANATH MARANNA SHETTY

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 19-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012) 9 S.C.R. 873 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
VISHWANATH MARANNA SHETTY 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1689 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 19, 2012 
(P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
MAHARASHTRA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME 
ACT, 1999: 
ss. 21(4) and 10 of MCOCA read with s.439 CrPC - Bail 
- Prosecution of respondent along with other accused persons 
A 
B 
c 
for offences punishable uls 3 of MCOCA and ss. 302, 452 
read with s.34 and s.120-B, /PC - Bail declined by Special 
Judge, but granted by High Court - Held: Section 21(4) of D 
MCOCA, interdicts grant of bail to the accused against whom 
there are reasonable grounds for believing him to be guilty 
of offence under MCOCA - In the instant case, High Court 
failed to appreciate the fact that the materials placed against 
the respondent consist of the confession made by the co-
E 
accused which was recorded uls 18 of MCOCA, the statement 
of the employee of the respondent which indicates that the 
respondent handed over cash to him and that the money 
received by the respondent and handed over to the main 
accused were part of the illegal transactions - The act of the 
F 
respondent, prima facie, is of abetment of the offence 
enumerated in MCOCA - A person accused of having 
committed the offence under MCOCA is not only subject to 
the limitations imposed u/s 439 CrPC but also subject to the 
restrictions placed by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s. (4) of s. 21 
of MCOCA - Impugned order of High Court granting bail to G 
respondent having been passed ignoring the mandatory 
requirements of s. 21(4) of MCOCA, is set aside and the order 
of the Special Judge restored. 
873 
H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent-accused no. 9 in a MCOC Special Case 
pending before the Special Court under the Maharashtra 
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, was alleged to be 
a member of an "organized crime syndicate" involved in 
the murder of one 'FT', and was stated to have been 
B managing funds of the said syndicate. The prosecution 
case was that through the respondent, money changed 
hands from accused no. 7, a builder, to accused nos. 1 
and 2, who killed 'FT'. The MCOCA Special Court denied 
bail to the respondent, but the High Court granted him 
c bail. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is relevant to note that MCOCA was 
enacted to make special provisions for prevention and 
D control of and for coping with, criminal activity by 
organized crime syndicate or gang, and for matters 
connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 21 (4) 
of MCOCA interdicts grant of bail to the accused against 
whom there are reasonable grounds for believing him to 
E be guilty of offence under MCOCA. Section 21 (4) bars the 
court from releasing the accused of an offence 
punishable under the said Act subject to the conditions 
prescribed in clauses (a) and (b) therein. Apart from giving 
an opportunity to the prosecutor to oppose the 
F application for such release, the other twin conditions, 
viz., (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are 
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not 
guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely 
to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. 
G The satisfaction contemplated in clauses (a) and (b) of 
sub-s. (4) of s.21 regarding the accused being not guilty, 
has to be based on "reasonable grounds". Though the 
expression "reasonable grounds" has not been defined 
in the Act, it is presumed that it is something more than 
H prima facie grounds. The recording of satisfaction on 
both the aspects mentioned in clauses (~) and (b) of sub-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. VISHWANATH 
875 
MARANNA SHETTY 
s. (4) of s.21 is sine qua non for granting bail under A 
MCOCA. It is also further made clear that a bare reading 
of the non-obstante clause in sub-s. (4) of s.21 of MCOCA 
that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having 
committed offence under the said Act is not only subject 
to the limitations imposed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal 
B 
Procedure, 1973 but also subject to the restrictions 
placed by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s. (4) of s. 21. [para 
10, 13, 18 and 21) [885-G-H; 887-G-H; 892-C; 893-F-H; 894-
A-C] 
1.2 In the instant case, the materials placed by the C 
prosecution show that wanted accused 'VS' and the 
respondent are members of wanted accused 'BN's 
"organized crime syndicate". It is also the definite stand 
of the 

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