BABANRAO TUKARAM RANJANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                  BABANRAO TUKARAM RANJANE                                       A
                      STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                               May 12, 2006

   [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]                             B
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 439 and 438(2)-
0rganised crime of printing and supplying fake stamps on large scale-
Allegation that Appellant, the Deputy Superintendent of Stamps, rendered
help and support in commission of the crime and also failed to take action
against members of the organised crime syndicate despite specific directions     c
from his superiors-Appellant already in custody for more than 2 years and
 3 months-Held: On consideration of the relevant circumstances and taking
 note of the period for which appellant was in custody, Special Court directed
 to grant him bail on fulfillment of certain conditions-Maharashtra Control
 of Organised Crime Act, 1999-Sections 3(2), 3(5), 21(4) and 24-Penal            D
 Code, 1860-Section 120B.

      A case was registered against the Appellant under the provisions
of IPC and Sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). It was alleged that Appellant,
who was at the relevant time Deputy Superintendent of Stamps, was                E
rendering help and support in the commission of organised crime of
printing and supplying fake stamps on a large scale. He also allegedly
failed to take action against two mem hers of the crime syndicate despite
specific directions from his superiors. Appellant denied his involvement
and sought bail, but the Special Court rejected his bail application.            F
     Challenging the said order of Special Court, Appellant submitted
before this Court that no prima facie case for conviction under Section
3(2) of MCOCA exists; that even if Section 24 of MCOCA is attracted
on the basis that as a public servant, he failed to take action, the
punishment was only 3 years and he having been in custody for more               G
than 2 years and 3 months, was entitled to be enlarged on bail.

     On behalf of the CBI however, it was submitted that both Section
3(2) as well as Section 3(5) of the MCOCA were clearly attracted and
that the Appellant could not be enlarged on bail without reference to
                                                                                 H
                                     631
    632                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   Section 21(4) of the MCOCA.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

           HELD: 1. It is not for this Court at this stage to go into a detailed
    discussion of the scope of MCOCA or discuss in detail the materials
B   against the appellant and the arguments for and against on merits. But
    this Court has to necessarily keep in mind the magnitude of the alleged
    crime and the consequences that have flowed from such a crime. As far
    as the appellant is concerned, at this stage this Court has only to
    consider whether he has made out a case for grant of bail. This Court
c   can neither be carried away by the catchy submission that 'bail and not
    jail' is the rule, nor can ignore the principle reflected by that catchphrase.
    On a consideration of the relevant circumstances obtaining and taking
    note of the period during which the appellant has been in custody, this
    Court is satisfied that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant.
    Therefore, this Court, in reversal of the order of the Special Court,
D   directs that Court to enlarge the appellant on bail on his furnishing
    security to the satisfaction of that Court in a sum of Rs.I lac with two
    solvent sureties for the like amount and on his fulfilling the other
    conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC. This Court also imposes a further
    condition that the Appellant should report before the Investigating
E   Officer between 10.00 AM and 12.00 Noon every third Saturday of the
    month and surrender his passport, (or file affidavit, if he has none)
    before the Special Court if it is already not in its custody. (635-A-DI

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 640
    of 2006.
F
        From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.2004, of the High Court of
    Bombay, in Cr!. A. No. 2252/04.

        A.V. Savant, S.V. Deshpande and Mrs. Anuradha Rustagi for the
    Appellant.
G
         Sushi! Kumar, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Vikas Sharma, D.S. Mabra,
    Ashiesh Kumar and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H         P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. : I. Leave granted.
     BABANRAO TUKARAM RANJANE v. STATE [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 633

     2. The appellant challenges the order of the Special Judge of the            A
Bombay High Court rejecting his application for bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in C.R.
No. 135 of2002 registered at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. The crime
is one registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime
Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCOCA ')The crime was originally
                                                                                  B
registered on 7.6.2002 against three accused. But, as the investigation
progressed, several others were brought in as accused and ultimately as on
the day of making the application before the Special Court, 65 persons have
been arraigned as accused and shown as arrested. The appellant is accused
No. 62. The appellant was arrested on 8.12.2003.                                  c
       3. It may be stated that originally the case was being investigated by
the Bombay Police. But considering the persons involved and the alleged
connivance of some of the officials of the Bombay Police, this Court directed
the handing over of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation
                                                                                  D
(hereinafter referred to as 'the CBI') and the CBI took up the investigation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI that amended
charge-sheets have been filed and he complained that framing of charges is
being stalled by the accused by trotting out one reason or another. Thus,
though the case was ultimately posted for framing of charges to 14.3.2006,
the charges had not been framed by the time the hearing of the appeal was         E
concluded.

      4. The appellant was, at the relevant time, the Deputy Superintendent
of Stamps. According to the supplementary charge-sheet, the appellant was
aware of the activities of Abdul Karim Ladas Telgi since December 1998
and was rendering help and support in the commission of the organized crime
                                                                                  F
of printing and supplying fake stamps on a large sale and had facilitated the
commission of continuing unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate
ofTelgi. The appellant had deliberately not taken action against one licensed
stamp vendor Madhav M.D. who was a close associate of Telgi and was
actively involved in the organized crime syndicate. He had also failed to         G
initiate legal action in the case of stamps issued by Sanjay Sharma who was
also a member of the organized crime syndicate. The appellant was aware
of the association of Madhav M.D. and Sanjay Sharma with Telgi and his
syndicate and the appellant failed to take action against them despite specific
directions from his superiors.                                                    H
    634                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A       5. The appellant denied his involvement and also took the stand that
    he was not the person who had to take action and that he had not failed to
    do anything which was enjoined on him by law. He also contended that in
    any event, he cannot be found guilty of any organized crime and no
    ingredient of the offence under Section 3(2) of MCOCA was prima facie
    made out as against him. He pointed out that he had been roped in by virtue
B   of Section 1208 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, '!PC') and therefore
    he was entitled to be enlarged on bail. The prayer of the appellant was
    opposed by submitting that the materials clearly showed the involvement of
    the appellant in an organized crime and considering the magnitude of the
    crime and the impact it had on society and it is likely to have on the affairs
c   of men and transactions, it was a fit case where no bail ought to be granted.

          6. The Special Court, on a consideration of the relevant materials, came
    to the conclusion that it was not an appropriate case for the grant of bail.
    That court was inclined to the prima facie view that the appellant had
    rendered help and support to the organized crime syndicate and had
D
    knowingly facilitated the commission of an organized crime. Thus, the
    application for bail was rejected.

           7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in challenging the order
    of the High Court submitted that no prima facie case for conviction under
E   Section 3(2) of MCOCA exists and only if Section 3(2) is attracted, the
    appellant was liable for punishment of not Jess than five years but which may
    extend to life. He submitted that even ifit is taken that Section 24 ofMCOCA
    is attracted on the basis that as a public servant, the appellant had failed to
    take action, the punishment was only three years and the appellant having
    been in custody for more than two years and three months, was entitled to
F
    be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel emphasized the approach to be made
    in dealing with applications for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code.

          8. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the CBI submitted that this is
    a clear case of an organized crime and the appellant was an insider in the
G   conspiracy. Section 3(2) of MCOCA was therefore clearly applicable.
    Section 3(5) of MCOCA was also attracted. He pointed out that a charge has
    been proposed by the CBI under Section 3 of the Act and if such a charge
    is framed, the appellant could not be enlarged on bail without reference to
    Section 21(4) of the MCOCA. He submitted that the High Court was
H   therefore right in refusing to grant bail to the appellant.
      BABANRAO TUKARAM RANJANE v. STATE [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 635

      9. It is not for this Court at this stage to go into a detailed discussion         A
of the scope of MCO<;A or discuss in detail the materials against the
appellant and the arguments for and against on merits. But we have
necessarily to keep in mind the magnitude of the alleged crime and the
consequences that have flowed from such a crime. As far as the appellant
is concerned, at this stage we have ·only to consider whether he has made
out a case for grant of bail. We can neither be carried away by the catchy               B
submission that 'bail and not jail' is the rule, nor can we ignore the principle
reflected by that catchphrase. On a consideration of the relevant circumstances
obtaining and taking note of the period during which the appellant has been
in custody, we are satisfied that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant.
Therefore, we, in reversal of the order of the Special Court, direct that Court          c
to enlarge the appellant on bail on his furnishing security to the satisfaction
of that Court in a sum of Rs. I lac with two solvent sureties for the like
amount and on his fulfilling the other conditions of Section 438(2) of the
Code. We also impose a further condition that he should report before the
 Investigating Officer between 10.00 AM and 12.00 Noon every third
 Saturday of the month and surrender his passport, (or file affidavit, if he has         D
none) before the Special Court if it is already not in its custody.

      10. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.

B.B.B.                                                             Appeal allowed.