Mr. Akshay, Mr. Anurag S. Tomar, Ms. Shivangi Shokeen and Mr. Dinesh Ashok Kr v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Judgment

1. The present bail application filed under Sections 483 read with 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 seeks grant of regular bail in proceedings emanating from case FIR No. 55/2016 dated 19th April, 2016, registered at P.S. Crime Branch, under Sections 3/4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 19992. Subsequently, by a supplementary chargesheet dated 7th December, 2017, the Applicant has been implicated under Sections 3(1)/3(2)/3(3)/3(4)/3(5) of MCOCA. CASE OF PROSECUTION:

2. The factual background leading to the filing of the present application is summarised as follows:

2.1. The aforementioned case was registered against one Manoj @ Morkheri and his associates, part of a structured and well-organised criminal 1 “BNSS” 2 “MCOCA” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:22.07.2025 17:56:54 BAIL APPLN. 552/2025 Page 1 of 19 syndicate, operating primarily in Delhi NCR and adjoining states. The syndicate is stated to be involved in a series of grave offences, including murder, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, robbery, and attempt to murder, which are committed through acts of violence, intimidation, and other unlawful means. These offences were carried out with the objective of deriving pecuniary benefit and securing undue economic advantage. The gang’s sustained criminal activities have instilled fear in the region. The members of this syndicate, acting either individually or in concert, operate as part of, or on behalf of, an organised crime network.

2.2. The impugned FIR was registered following a proposal for approval to invoke the provisions of MCOCA under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act in light of the consistent and continuing criminal activities of the syndicate. Manoj Morkheri, acting in concert with his associates, is engaged in organised criminal activity within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA, primarily for pecuniary gain. They constitute an organised crime syndicate as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. Their continued engagement in criminal conduct has resulted in accumulation of considerable illicit assets, both movable and immovable, which have been derived from the proceeds of crime. The network allegedly functions with a high degree of coordination and exerts influence through sustained patterns of criminal conduct.

2.3. The Applicant was absconding to evade arrest in the present case, leading to the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants against him on 5th

December, 2016. Meanwhile, he was apprehended in connection with FIR No. 28/2017, P.S. Barwala, Hissar, Haryana. Subsequently, he was arrested in the present case on 16th June, 2017, following which he was committed to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:22.07.2025 17:56:54 BAIL APPLN. 552/2025 Page 2 of 19 trial before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, where the matter is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence.

2.4. During investigation, the Applicant volunteered to make a confession and was accordingly produced before the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, his confessional statement under Section 18(1) of the MCOCA was recorded on 21st June, 2017, wherein he admitted to his involvement in the alleged syndicate. Similarly, other co-accused persons, whose confessions were also recorded, confirmed the Applicant’s involvement in the crime syndicate.

2.5. The Applicant is an active gang member of the crime syndicate. He is accused of playing a direct role in multiple offences, including those involving murder, kidnapping for ransom, robberies and extending threats, criminal intimidation, across different jurisdictions. For instance, he was implicated in FIR No. 415/2011, P.S. Narnaund, Hisar, under Sections 302/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act for allegedly murdering a rival using weapons supplied by Manoj Morkheri. Subsequently, the Applicant and co-accused are alleged to have kidnapped a student, Rishu Mittal, at gunpoint and demanded a ransom of INR 1 crore, resulting in the registration of FIR No. 497/2011, P.S. Prashant Vihar, under Sections 364A and 120B IPC. Further, under Manoj’s instructions, they allegedly committed a car robbery, pursuant to which FIR No. 914/2011, P.S. Civil Lines, Karnal came to be registered under Section 393 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act. Accordingly, based on the investigation conducted and the evidence collected, it is alleged that the Applicant is a habitual offender, involved in a number of serious crimes, and accordingly, should not be released on bail. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:22.07.2025 17:56:54 BAIL APPLN. 552/2025 Page 3 of 19 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPLICANT:

3. Counsel for the Applicant advances the following submissions seeking grant of regular bail:

3.1. Long Period of Custody and Delay in Trial: The Applicant was arrested on 16th June, 2017 and has remained in custody for over 8 years. Out of the 126 prosecution witnesses cited, only 35 have been examined thus far, and none of the public witnesses have deposed anything incriminating against the Applicant. The protracted nature of the trial, which cannot be attributed to any delay on the part of the Applicant, ought to weigh in favour of granting him bail. The Supreme Court has consistently held that even in cases involving special statutes like MCOCA, the stringent bail conditions can be relaxed when the accused has undergone long periods of incarceration. In Mohd. Enamul Haque v. Enforcement Directorate,3 the Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration will inure to the benefit of the accused for bail when delay in trial is not attributable to him. In Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi),4 the Court affirmed that bail can be granted if there is an undue delay in the trial, even under the stringent provisions of special statutes like the NDPS Act. Reliance is also placed on the judgement in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb.5

3.2. Lack of Evidence to satisfy twin conditions under MCOCA: To invoke Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA, the Prosecution must establish two essential elements: (i) continuing unlawful activity, and (ii) the involvement of the accused in an organised crime syndicate for pecuniary gain.6 Neither