Maharashtra Control Of Organized Crime Act| Denying Police Custody Based On Previous Case Is Unjustified And Invalid: High Court
The Bombay High Court granted the police the liberty to reapply for police custody remand of the respondent-accused wherein the State of Maharashtra, had appealed under section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC ), seeking to quash an order issued by the Special Judge (under the MCOC Act). The appellant's main contention was that the refusal of police custody in the current case, based on a prior MCOC case involving the respondent-accused, was unjustified, given that the two cases were distinct.
A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse was dealing with an order pertaining to a remand report. The Bench observed that the reason provided by the Special Judge for denying police custody, based on the respondent-accused's prior involvement in a different MCOC case, and was not valid.
Advocate P.P. Shinde appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Niranjan Mundargi was appointed for the Respondent as Amicus.
The Court noted that on August 30, 2022, a case was filed for an offense under IPC section 392 with section 34. MCOC Act was invoked on October 20, 2022, with approval under section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act. A co-accused confessed under section 18 of the MCOC Act. On July 08, 2023, the respondent was arrested for IPC and Arms Act offenses. Further arrests followed via transfer warrants on July 11 and July 15, 2023, all under IPC section 392 with section 34. On July 18, 2023, a production warrant-based arrest occurred for IPC offenses with MCOC Act sections added on November 29, 2022; 5-day custody was granted. On July 24, 2023, the Ambernath Police sought a production warrant related to the MCOC-invoked case; the Special Judge issued it. The respondent appeared on July 26, 2023, but police custody was denied, with custody until August 09, 2023.
The Court stated that the earlier case and the present case involve different sections of the IPC and the MCOC Act.
“The sections applied in both the C.Rs as noted aforesaid are different.”
Based on this analysis, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and granted the police the liberty to reapply for police custody remand of the respondent-accused. The Court emphasized that the decision should be made in accordance with the law and uninfluenced by the earlier order.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed and disposed of.
Cause Title: State of Maharashtra v. Kasim, 2023:BHC-AS:24563-DB
Click here to read/download Judgment
