Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

25 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

MAHIPAL SINGHversusC.B.I. & ANR.

2014 INSC 94527 March 2014Disposed off

Mahipal Singh was accused of rigging entrance examinations for medical and veterinary courses and was charged under several IPC provisions. The CBI invoked Section 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against him in four cases, leading to his remand under MCOCA. The Delhi High Court set aside the

ACHPAL @ RAMSWAROOP & ANOTHERversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018 INSC 85624 September 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellants were arrested in connection with a multi‑offence FIR and remanded to police/magisterial custody on 8 April 2018. The High Court, on 3 July 2018, ordered that the investigation be conducted by a gazetted officer of at least the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police and that a report be filed within

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSHIVA@ SHIVAJI RAMAJI SONAWANE & ORS. ETC.

2015 INSC 51924 July 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by the State of Maharashtra challenging the High Court’s setting aside of convictions under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The High Court had held that merely filing numerous charge‑sheets and taking cognizance of past offences did not satisfy the statutory re

SADHWI PRAGYNA SINGH THAKURversusSTATE. OF MAHARASHTRA

2011 INSC 70623 September 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Sadhwi Pragnya Singh Thakur, was alleged to have been arrested on 10 October 2008 in connection with the Malegaon bomb blast and claimed that she was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, violating Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution, and that the charge‑sheet was filed after the 90‑d

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSITARAM POPAT VETAL AND ANR.

2004 INSC 46523 August 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed against the Bombay High Court's order granting bail to six accused, including Sitaram Popat Vetal, in a murder case (Section 302 IPC) concerning the death of Hanumant Vithal Chaudhary. The High Court had released the accused on the ground that they were falsely implicated due to politi

SUDARSHAN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2014 INSC 41123 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Sudarshan and others were convicted for the murder of two persons at a holiday resort, based on an FIR that was lodged at a police station outside the incident’s jurisdiction after the complainant first consulted an advocate 15 km away. The Supreme Court examined the abnormal conduct of the complainant,

ZAMEER AHMED LATIFUR REHMAN SHEIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2010 INSC 23723 April 2010Disposed off

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the phrase "promoting insurgency" in Section 2(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, arguing that the State legislature lacked competence and that the provision conflicted with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004. The

SHARAD HIRU KOLAMBEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 85220 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Sharad Hiru Kolambe was convicted under several IPC provisions (364A, 395, 397, 387) and three provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and sentenced to imprisonment, hefty fines and default imprisonment for non‑payment of those fines. After serving the substantive term of 14 years, he was r

ABHISHEKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

2022 INSC 61820 May 2022Dismissed

The appellant Abhishek Singh was charged under several IPC offences, the Arms Act and MCOCA after a proclamation declared him an absconder. The Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police granted sanction for prosecution under MCOCA, which the appellant challenged before the High Court and then the

DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2018 INSC 24820 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, a senior government official, was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for refusing sanction to prosecute two senior officers who had made adverse entries in his service record. He sought anticipatory bail and the quashing o

SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 83718 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode, was arrested under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and remained incarcerated for about five years without being produced before the trial judge on most of the 102 scheduled dates, and without charges being framed. The Special Judge and the High Court

RAHNA JALALversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 70717 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a mother‑in‑law, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 498A IPC and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 alleging that her son had pronounced triple talaq on his wife. The Kerala High Court denied the bail application, prompting an appeal to the Supreme C

RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2025 INSC 132217 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Raj Kumar was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC based primarily on the identification by the injured eye‑witness, PW‑18, whose testimony was recorded via video‑link eight and a half years after the incident. The High Court upheld the conviction, relying on the witness's identification, the appella

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusSANDIP OMPRAKASH GUPTA

2022 INSC 128815 December 2022Disposed off

The State of Gujarat appealed against the High Court’s order granting bail to Sandip Omprakash Gupta under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (the 2015 Act). The key issue was whether an FIR under the 2015 Act could be maintained when no FIR had been registered against the accused after the

BABANRAO TUKARAM RANJANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2006 INSC 33412 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Stamps, was charged under the IPC and Sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for allegedly aiding a large‑scale fake‑stamp racket. He had been in custody for over two years when the Special Court denied his bail application under Se

GOKUL BHAGAJI PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2006 INSC 9738 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a senior police inspector, was charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for allegedly facilitating a counterfeit stamp syndicate by failing to seal the printing press and arrest its kingpin, Telgi. The Special Judge and the High Court denied his bail, invoking Section 21(4)(b)

CHENNA BOYANNA KRISHNA YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2006 INSC 9748 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav, a former minister and advocate, was charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for allegedly abetting Abdul Karim Telgi's counterfeit stamp syndicate. The High Court rejected his bail applications, relying on a recorded conversation between Yadav and Telgi as prim

MUSTAQ AHMED MOHAMMED ISAK AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2009 INSC 7678 May 2009Dismissed

The appellants were arrested under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and the Special Court granted two successive extensions of the investigation period, first to 21 August 2006 and then to 4 September 2006, after which the charge‑sheet was filed. The appellants filed a bail application on 4 Septembe

JAMIRUDDIN ANSARIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2009 INSC 7336 May 2009Disposed off

The case arose from a private complaint filed under Section 9(1) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) alleging organised crime offences by senior police officials. The Special Court ordered an investigation, but the Bombay High Court Full Bench was split on whether such a complaint could be enterta

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusMRS. BHARATI CHANDMAL VARMA @AYESHA KHAN

2001 INSC 5924 December 2001Dismissed

The respondent, Ayesha Khan (also known as Bharati Chandmal Varma), was arrested on 1 April 2001 for several IPC offences and remanded on 2 April. During investigation, authorities discovered organised crime offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC) and obtained approval under Section 2

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusPANKAJ JAGSHI GANGAR

2021 INSC 8243 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra charged Pankaj Jagshi Gangar with offences under Sections 384, 386, 387 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for running a matka business, funding an international gangster and being an active member of an organised crime syndicate. Th

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC.ETC.versusSAEED SOHAIL SHEIKH ETC. ETC.

2012 INSC 5042 November 2012Case Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra transferred a group of under‑trial prisoners from Arthur Road Jail in Bombay to other jails, citing overcrowding and security concerns, and the jail authorities later used force to quell a disturbance involving some of those prisoners. The prisoners filed writ petitions alleging that the transf

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCYversusZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI

2019 INSC 4562 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) sought to deny bail to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, accused No.10 in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and several IPC offences, alleging he was a key fund‑raiser for terrorist activities. The Delhi High Court granted bail, holding that the charge‑sh

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusBHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & ORS.

2008 INSC 10011 September 2008Case Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Bombay High Court judgment that had struck down sections 13‑16 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and the words “or under any other Act” in section 21(5) as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court examined whether the State could legislate on intercep

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search