http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  640 of 2006

PETITIONER: BABANRAO TUKARAM RANJANE

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2006

BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.959 of 2005)

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

1.              Leave granted.

2.              The appellant challenges the order of the Special  Judge of the 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 of 2002 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 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.

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 (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 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 of printing and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

supplying fake stamps on a large sale and had facilitated  the commission of continuing unlawful activities of the  organized crime syndicate of Telgi.  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 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.   

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 of Section  120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ’IPC’) 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 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 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 Section 3(2) of  MCOCA exists and only if Section 3(2) is attracted, the  appellant was liable for punishment of not less than five  years but which may extend to life.  He submitted that  even if it is taken that Section 24 of MCOCA 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 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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

could not be enlarged on bail without reference to Section  21(4) of the MCOCA.  He submitted that the High Court  was therefore right in refusing to grant bail to the  appellant.  

9.              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 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 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  to enlarge the appellant on bail on his furnishing security  to the satisfaction of that Court in a sum of Rs.1 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 none)  before the Special Court if it is already not in its custody.

10.             The appeal is allowed on the above terms.