C.B.IversusPRADEEP BHALCHANDRA SAWANT AND ANR.

                                     C.B.I.                                                   A
                                       v.
                      PRADEEP BHALCHANDRA SA WANT AND ANR.

                                       AUGUST 17, 2007

             [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.]                            B


                Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act-ss. 3 & 24 rlw
_...     2(l)(a){d)-Dy. Commnr. of Police arrested in the stamp scam case-
          Allegation that he by his deliberate inaction facilitated organised crime of C
          printing/sale of fake stamp papers-Bail-Grant of, by High Court-
          lnterference with grant of bail-Held: Contention, that High Court
          misconstrued scope of the Act and erred in thinking that deliberate inaction
          on part ofresponsible police officer would not amount to abetting commission
          of organised crime, may be having some substance-However, order of bail
          not interfered with-It is appropriate to leave it to the Trial Court to take D
         final view on .all questions after appreciation of evidence.

               Respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, was arrested in
         connection With the 'Stamp Scam' case. It was alleged that he by his deliberate
         inaction facilitated the organized crime of printing and sale of fake stamp
         papers to flourish and that he was guilty of offences under the Maharashtra          E
         Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). Respondent was however enlarged
         on bail by the High Court. The present appeal challenges the ~aid order of
         the High Court.

               Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                                              F
                HELD: 1.1. There is some merit in the submission of the appellant that
         the approach of the High Court leaves a lot to~ desired. There may be some
         substance in the argument that the High Court has not properly understood
         the content of Section 3(2) and 3(3) of MCOCA and it was in error in thinking
         that deliberate inaction or studied negligence on the part of a responsible          G
         police officer could not amount to abetting or knowingly facilitating the
         commission ofan organised crime. But, it is not proper for this Court to go
         into that question in detail in this proceeding, which is only an appeal against
   ,.,   the grant of bail. After all, whatever is said in this order will not even control

                                               1077                                           H
    1078                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A   the decision to be taken after the conclusion of the trial and it is appropriate
    to leave it to the court trying the case to take a final view on all the questions
    after the evidence has been let in. (Para 5) (1080-B, C, DJ

          1.2. The reasons given in an order granting bail can only be understood
    as supporting an order granting bail with only the consequences that flow
B   from it. The observations cannot control the decision to be taken after trial
    by the concerned court. [Para 51 (1080-E, F)

          RanjitSing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
    (20051 5 S.C.C. 294, referred to.

C          2. Appellant tried to highlight many alleged commissions and omissions
    on the part of the respondent and especially in his alleged treatment of Telgi,
    the kingpin in the crim_e concerned. Naturally, the respondent attempted to
    controvert the stand adopteji by the appellant and contended that there were
    no such acts of commission or omission on the side of the respondent and
                          r     .                                 .
D   that it was a case where the respondent himself was only a subordinate officer
    not in a position to take some of the actions which are alleged to have been
    not taken by him. Here again, it is not proper for this Court to go into an
    analysis of the facts and circumstances. Suffice it to say that it is not
    necessary to interfere with the order granting bail to the respondent in this
    appeal against such grant. It is expected that the trial court would try the
E   case in accordance with law untrammelled by the observations in these orders.
                                                   [Para 6) (1080-F, G, H; 1081-A)

            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 088 of
    2007.

F         From the Final Judgment and Order dated 27.8.2004 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Borribay in Criminal Application No.1963/2004.

          Sushi! Kumar, R.K.Jain, ShekharNafde, Sandhya Goswami Adolf Mathew,
    Vinay Arora, Sanjay Jain, P.Parmeswatan, M.K. Kocharekar, Mrs. Anuradha
    Rustagi, S.Sonawane, Nilakanta Nay~k, S.V.Deshpande, Shivaji M. Jadhav,
G   Himanshu Gupta, Brij Kishor Sah, S.S.Shinde and Ravindra Kumar Adsure for
    the appearing parties.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
         C.B.I. v. PRADEEP BHALCHANDRASAWANT [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.}        1079
      2. This Appeal by Special Leave by the Central Bureau of Investigation A
challenges the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent, at the
relevant time, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The respondent
was arrested in connection with criminal cases registered in what has come
to be known as the 'stamp scam'. The respondent is arrayed as accused No.
65 in C.R. No. 135 of2002 initially registered at Bund Garden Police Station, B
Pune for different offences under the Indian Penal Code a& ·well as under
Sections 3 and 24 read with Section 2(l)(a)(d) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act ('MCOCA') read with Sections 7 and l3(l)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges against him, inter alia, comprised
of charges 58 to 70. The charges included the charge that the respondent had
conspired to commit, to abet, to knowingly facilitate the commission of an C
organised crime, namely, the printing and sale of fake stamp papers and
thereby was guilty of offences under the MCOCA, which carried a minimum
punishment of imprisonment for five years but which could extend to life. The
respondent was arrested on 7. l.2004 and subsequently by the order under
challenge, he was enlarged on bail. It is this order granting bail that is the
subject matter of this appeal at the instance of the prosecution.              D
       3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant - C.B.I., as per the
supplementary charge sheet, the respondent was being charged with rendering
help and support on his own in the commission of an organised crime to the
members of a organised crime syndicate by abstaining from taking the necessary      E
action by himself and through his subordinate officers and that he had
directed his subordinates that Telgi, the prime accused should not be kept in
any lock up. This had facilitated the continuing of illegal activity by Telgi
including the disposal of his ill-gotten properties even while he was in police
custody. Telgi was also accorded special treatment by the respondent.
According to learned counsel, in the circumstances, the High Court was              F
clearly in error in granting bail to the respondent on its misconception of the
scope of the relevant provisions of MCOCA and on its erroneous approach
that connivance or deliberat~ inaction on the part of a police officer which
facilitated the organised crime to flourish would not amount to an offence
under Section 3 of the MCOCA. Learned counsel submitted that since a
fundamental error had been made by the High Court, it was a proper case for         G
this Court to interfere with the order.

       4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted
that the alleged acts of commission and omission of the respondent did not
attract Section 3 of MCOCA and ~t best even if the case is brought under            H
    1080                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A Section 24 of MCOCA, the punishment could extend only to three years and
    on the materials available, the High Court was justified in granting bail to the
    respondent. Learned counsel submitted that on the materials, there was no
    reason for this Court to interfere with an order granting bail, .a course that is
    not very readily adopted by this Court.

B          5.We    find some merit in the submission of learned counsel for the
    appellant that the approach of the High Court leaves a lot to be desired. There
    may be some substance in his argument that the High Court has not properly
    understood the content of Section 3 (2) and 3(3) of MCOCA and. it was in error
    in thinking that deliberate inaction or studied negligence on the part of a
C responsible police officer could not amount to abetting or knowingly facilitating
    the commission of an organised crime. But, we do not think that it is proper
    for this Court to go into that question in detail in this proceeding, which is
    only an appeal against the grant of bail. After all, whatever we may· say in
    this order will not even control the decision· to be taken after the conclusion
  . of the trial and we think it appropriate to leave it to the court trying the case
D to take a final view on all the questions after the evidence has been let in.
    Learned counsel for the respondent, in this connection, relied upon the
    decision in RanjitSing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra &
    Anr., {2005) 5 S.C.C. 294 to support the argument thatthe High Court was not
    wrong in proceeding on the basis that no offence under Section 3 of MCOCA
E would be made out. On scrutiny of the decision, we find that it was only an
    order on a bail application in the case of another police officer who was the
    Commissioner of Police and as we have noted earlfor, the observations therein
    obviously may not be considered an authoritative pronouncement on the
    relevant aspects at the trial of the cause or as concluding any question. The
    reasons given in ari order granting bail can only be understood as supP,Orting
F an order granting bail with ·only the consequences that flow from it The
    observations cannot control the decision to be taken after trial by the concerned
    court.

           6. It is true that counsel tried to highlight many alleged commissions
    and omissions ·on the part of the respondent and especially in his alleged
G   treatment of Telgi, the kingpin in the crime concerned. Naturally, learned
    counsel for the respondent attempted to controvert the stand adopted by the
    learned counsel for the appellant and contended that there were no such acts
    of commission or omission on the side of the respondent and that it was a
    case where the respondent himself was only a subordinate officer not in a
H   posit.ion to take some of the actions which are alleged to have been not taken
        C.B.I. v. PRADEEP BHALCHANDRA SAWANT [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.)    }081

by him. Here again, we do not think that it is proper for us to go into an A
analysis of the facts and circumstances. Suffice it to say that we do not think
mat it is necessary to interfere with the order granting bail to the respondent
in this appeal against such grant. We expect the trial court to try the case in
ac~ordance with law untrammelled by the observations in these orders.
   l
   ' 7. We therefore decline to interfere and dismiss this appeal            B
BB.B.                                                   Appeal dismissed.