Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Through Asst … vs Lalu Alias Lalla So Jagdamba Prasad … on 11 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5396
956 Revn 90.25.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 90/2025
State of Maharashtra,
through Asst. Superintendent of Police,
Saoner Sub-division, Nagpur (Rural).
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
Lalu @ Lalla s/o Jagdamba Prasad Yadav,
Age 33 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o. Yerla, P.S. Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur.
RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. D.V. Chavhan, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. N.B.
Jawade, APP for applicant/State.
Mr. A. A. Krishnan, Advocate for respondent (appointed)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 11/06/2025.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By this revision, the State is challenging the order of the
Special Judge (MCOC Act) and District Judge, Nagpur-1 rejecting the
956 Revn 90.25.odt
2
application of the prosecution for seeking Police Custody Remand
(“PCR”) of the respondent by granting ten days PCR of the
respondent for the investigation purpose.
4. Complainant Pramod Morbaji Game on 14.03.2025, lodged
the report alleging that on 14.03.2025 along with Rajkumar Game
coming from Asti (Khurd) to Yerala at about about 06.30 p.m. on his
motorcycle, at that time, the respondent Lalu Yadav and co-accused
Ganesh Mondhe assaulted complainant with deadly weapon. Co-
accused Ganesh caught hold complainant Pramod Game and the
respondent inflicted the blow of sickle on Pramod Game due to this,
he sustained grievous injury to his right fingers, lips, left hand and toot
of the complainant was broken and they both have sustained the
grievous injuries. Thereafter the accused fled away from this spot. On
the basis of the said report, the Police have registered the crime vide
Crime No. 194/2025. Initially, crime was registered under Sections
109, 118(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (“BNSS”). During investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a proposal for application of the provisions of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (“MCOC Act“) and the
956 Revn 90.25.odt
3
same was allowed by the Special Inspector General of Police, Nagpur
to apply the provisions of the MCOC Act and accordingly, the
approval was granted. After receipt of the approval, on 03.05.2025,
the Investigating Officer filed an application of obtaining the custody
of the present respondent for the investigating purpose, however said
application was rejected by the Special Court and hence, this revision.
5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State who
submitted that during investigation, it revealed that the involvement
of the present respondent is in continuous illegal activities and he is a
member of Organised Crime Syndicate, therefore, the Investigating
Officer approached to the Superior Authority for obtaining the
approval under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act. The Competent
Authority has considered the entire record and it reveals that in all
nine offences are registered against the present respondent which are
registered on an allegation that these offceces are committed by him
for obtaining the pecuniary gain. The competent authority has also
considered his continuous involvement in continuing unlawful
activities and he has been charge-sheeted in eight different serious
offences and therefore, approval was granted. After granting of the
956 Revn 90.25.odt
4
approval, it was necessary for the Investigating Officer to investigate
as to his involvement being a member of the Organised Crime
Syndicate and also to ascertain whether he has obtained the pecuniary
gain by committing such offences. Therefore, the application was
made to the Special Court for grant of Police Custody, however, the
Special Court has only considered that only ground raised by the
Investigating Officer for Police Custody of accused that he wants to
investigate whether any property is purchased by the accused or where
there is any bank account in which money is deposited. Both the
grounds are raised are not justifiable for PCR. This observation of the
Special Court itself is erroneous as that was not the only ground raised
in the application, but the other grounds were also raised by the
Investigating Agency that the investigation as to his involvement in
the continuing unlawful activities as well as whether his involvement
in offences for obtaining pecuniary gain is to be ascertained, but the
Special Court has not considered the same. He has also invited my
attention to the provisions of Section 187 of the BNSS and submitted
that the Investigating Agency can apply for the extension or for the
Police Custody of the accused in view of Sub-section (2) of Section
956 Revn 90.25.odt
5
187 which read as, “The Magistrate to whom an accused person is
forwarded under this section may, irrespective of whether he has or
has no jurisdiction to try the case, after taking into consideration
whether such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been
cancelled, authorise, from time to time, the detention of the accused
in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding
fifteen days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial
forty days or sixty days out of detention period of sixty days or ninety
days, as the case may be, as provided in sub-section (3), and if he has
no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers
further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be
forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction .” He further
submitted that initially, also only one day PCR was granted for the
investigating purpose. Now considering the gravity of the offence and
the investigation regarding his involvement in continuing unlawful
activities, his PCR is required, therefore the order of the Special Court
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondent be remanded
into the Police Custody.
956 Revn 90.25.odt
6
6. Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed said
application and submitted that the order passed by the Special Court is
a reasoned order, wherein it is specifically observed that the only
ground raised in the application that investigation as to his assets is to
be carried out and that is not the sufficient ground for granting of
Police Custody and therefore, there is no interference call for and
hence revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
7. Before going into the controversy involved in the present
application, it is necessary to see certain provisions of the MCOC Act
and its preamble. The preamble states that it is an Act to make special
provisions for prevention and control of, and for coping with the
criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang, and for matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto. The MCOC Act, states
the preamble, makes special provisions for prevention and control of,
for coping with, criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or
gang. Essentially, therefore, the MCOC Act targets the unlawful
activities of the organized crime syndicate. The objects and statements
of the MCOC Act show that organized crime has for quite some years
come up as a very serious threat to the society. It knows no national
956 Revn 90.25.odt
7
boundaries and is fueled by illegal wealth generated by contract,
killing, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics
kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money
laundering, etc. The illegal wealth and black money generated by the
organized crime being very huge, it has had serious adverse effect on
our economy. It was seen that the organized criminal syndicates made
a common cause with terrorist gangs and foster terrorism which
extend beyond the national boundaries. There was reason to believe
that organized criminal gangs have been operating in the State and,
thus, there was immediate need to curb their activities. Therefore, the
legislatures felt that the existing legal framework i. e. the penal and
procedural laws and the adjudicatory system was found to be rather
inadequate to curb or control the mense of organised crime, therefore,
the special law was enacted with stringent and deterrent provisions
including in certain circumstances power to intercept wire, electronic
or oral communication to control the mense of the organised crime. It
is the purpose of this Act to achieve these objects.
8. In the light of the above, preamble and object behind the
enactment, it is necessary to see what the organize crime means.
956 Revn 90.25.odt
8
Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOC Act defines “organised crime” means
any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly,
either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of
such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation
or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining
pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for
himself or any other person or promoting insurgency.
9. The definition of “continuing unlawful activity” within
meaning of Section 2(1)(d) states an activity prohibited by law for the
time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment of three or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as
a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate
in respect of which more than one chargesheets have been filed before
a competent court within the preceding the period of ten years and
that court has taken cognizance of such offence. Thus, for an activity
to be a `continuing unlawful activity’, a) the activity must be
prohibited by law; b) it must be a cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment of three years or more; c) it must be undertaken singly
or jointly; d) it must be undertaken as a member of an organized crime
956 Revn 90.25.odt
9
syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, and e) in respect of which
more than one charge- sheet have been filed before a competent court.
10. The Apex Court has dealt with the above said situation and
in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of
Maharashtra and anr, reported in (2005)5 SCC 294 observed that in
order to invoke MCOC Act even if a person may or may not have any
direct role to play as regards the commission of an organised crime, if a
nexus either with an accused who is a member of an “organised crime
syndicate” or with the offence in the nature of an “organised crime” is
established that would attract the invocation of Section 3(2) of
MCOC Act. Therefore, even if one may not have any direct role to
play relating to the commission of an “organised crime”, but when the
nexus of such person with an accused who is a member of the
“organised crime syndicate” or such nexus is related to the offence in
the nature of “organised crime” is established by showing his
involvement with the accused or the offence in the nature of such
“organised crime”, that by itself would attract the provisions of MCOC
Act.
956 Revn 90.25.odt
10
11. In the light of the above well settled legal positions, if the
proposals which was sent for applying the MCOC Act is concerned, it
shows the crime chart. The crime chart shows that in all nine offences
are registered against the present respondent out of which in two
offences, he was acquitted but still seven offences are pending against
the respondent. The nature of offences shows that the said offences
have been committed by the present respondent in furtherance of the
common object of the unlawful assembly. The nature of the offences
further shows that it were committed against the persons or the
property of the individual for obtaining the pecuniary gain. The
competent authority has considered those aspects and thereafter
granted an approval. Thus, the involvement of the present respondent
reveals in various offences and the modus operandi of the present
respondent also reveals from the nature of the offences. The learned
Special Court has not considered that not only the assets of the
respondent are to be investigated but his involvement in the organised
crime syndicate is also required to be investigated and in view of
Section 187(2) of BNSS, the State has rightly filed an application and
therefore, the opportunity is to be granted to the Investigating Officer
956 Revn 90.25.odt
11
to investigate the matter and therefore the prayer of the State for grant
of Police Custody is required to be considered.
12. In view of above observation, the order dated 03.05.2025
passed by the Special Judge (MCOC Act) and District Judge-1 is
required to be quashed and set aside. The prayer of the present
applicant i.e. State for remanding the respondent into Police Custody
is required to be allowed. In view of that, I proceed to pass following
order:-
(I) Revision application is allowed.
(II) The order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge
(MCOC Act) and District Judge-1 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The respondent is remanded to the Police Custody for seven days.
13. Revision application stands disposed of in above terms.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/06/2025 17:12:48
[ad_1]
Source link