Prima Facie Rigorous Conditions For Bail Won't Apply: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To MCOCA Accused With 24 Antecedents Of Chain Snatching

The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to an alleged chain snatcher observing that rigorous conditions for bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) would not apply when all his criminal antecedents pertained to chain snatching.

Justice Madhav J Jamdar granted bail to one Dipak P Mali, alleged leader of a gang of chain snatchers in Pune observing - 

“Although the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC”) have been invoked, all offences are of chain- snatching and therefore, prima facie rigors of Section 21(4) of the MCOC will not apply.”

As per Section 21(4) of MCOCA, before granting bail, the court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Mali is booked under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the MCOCA.

According to the prosecution's case, on May 27, 2021, two individuals riding a motorcycle allegedly snatched 20-gram gold chain of the complainant, who was proceeding with her cousin in a scooter. FIR was registered and during investigation, the motorcycle involved in the crime was recovered at the instance of the applicant. The present applicant was arrested in June 2021, and he allegedly showed various places where he committed similar crimes with his co-accused. A jeweler who allegedly used to buy the stolen goods was also arrested. Thus, sections under MCOCA were invoked against the applicant in the chargesheet.

He approached the high court for bail when the sessions court rejected his bail application.

Advocate Sana Raees Khan for the applicant argued that he was merely riding the motorcycle, while the pillion rider committed the alleged crime. She highlighted the lack of progress in the trial, with the applicant being incarcerated for about three years without charges being framed. Additionally, she emphasized that the Test Identification Parade (TI Parade) had not been conducted, and the applicant had not been convicted in any of the previous cases and has obtained bail in all of them.

APP SS Kaushik for the state opposed the bail application, stating that the motorcycle seen in the CCTV footage was recovered at the applicant's instance, and alleged that it was stolen. She said that a TI Parade had been conducted but the complainant failed to identify the applicant. She highlighted the applicant's 24 antecedents related to chain-snatching offenses as grounds for rejecting the bail plea.

The court observed that the incident occurred on May 27, 2021, with the arrest on June 5, 2021, and the charge-sheet filed on August 13, 2021. Despite the passage of time, there was no progress in the trial, and charges had not been framed. With 47 proposed witnesses, the trial was expected to be protracted, the court said.

Regarding prosecution's arguments regarding the recovered motorcycle and the applicant's antecedents, the court noted the lack of identification by the complainant and the nature of the offenses, which primarily involved chain-snatching.

The court granted him bail on a PR bond of Rs.50,000 with one or two local solvent sureties.

However, as all the 24 previous alleged crimes as well as the present one were committed in Pune District, the court prohibited him from residing within Pune District except for reporting to the Investigating Officer, if called, and for attending the trial.

Case no. – Criminal Bail Application No. 1905 of 2023

Case Title – Dipak P. Mali v. State of Maharashtra