Grant Of Bail Must Be Subject To Embargo In Special Enactments : Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Of MCOCA Accused

The Supreme Court held that when a special law imposes an embargo on the grant of bail, then the Courts must exercise the power to grant bail subject to the conditions specified under the special provision.

While holding so, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol set aside the bail granted to an accused charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”) because instead of limiting its consideration to whether the conditions of bail gets fulfilled or not, the High Court delved into the correctness of the prosecution's case and sufficiency of the evidence.

As per Section 21(4) of the MCOCA, bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

“..it is a fact that the impugned order did not reflect such consideration as has been required in respect of matter involving offences under MCOCA in terms of the provisions thereunder as also the decisions rendered by this Court in respect of grant of bail. When there is an embargo put in by a specific provision under a special enactment in the matter of grant of bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, the power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in such specific provision. In the case on hand, such a specific provision is contained under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA.”, the court observed.

The Court emphasized that while the High Court may grant bail despite non-compliance with stringent conditions in statutes like MCOCA in cases involving a violation of Part III of the Constitution, it cannot exercise this power when bail is granted based on an assessment of the sufficiency or inadequacy of the evidence on record, rather than on constitutional grounds.

“In the light of the core contention raised by the appellant that the High Court had transgressed into impermissible area inasmuch as the question of sufficiency or otherwise and correctness of the prosecution case were considered while passing the impugned order instead of confining the consideration in regard to the question of satisfaction or otherwise of the stringent conditions in the matter of grant of bail where offences under MCOCA are involved. As noted above, grant of bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the High Court is not on the ground(s) of violation of Part-III of the Constitution of India.”, the court said.

The Court reiterated that offences under MCOCA impose stringent conditions for granting bail, therefore, the High Court should have ensured compliance with these requirements rather than focusing on evidentiary sufficiency or otherwise.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail to the accused and remanded the bail application for fresh consideration by the High Court, directing it to evaluate the matter strictly per Section 21(4) of MCOCA within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Samarth Luthra, Adv. Ms. Ishita Soni, Adv. Mr. Nischal Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Dang, Adv. Mr. Sahir Seth, Adv. Mr. Harsh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Narang, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Aren, Adv. Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Uday B. Dube, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Dube, Adv. Mr. Rushikesh Kale, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bandal, Adv. Mr. Ashish Jacob Mathew, Adv. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Adv. Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR

Case Title: Jayshree Kanabar Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 10

Click here to read/download the judgment