Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Pipaniya, Mr. Harjas Pratap Singh v. STATE on 29 Apr 2025

Judgment

1. This is the second application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) and Section 21 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCOCA’) seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 0358/2020 under Sections 3(1)(i)/3(2)/3(4) of the MCOCA, registered at P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:29.04.2025 19:48:00 BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024

2. The first application on behalf of the applicant seeking bail before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.04.2022 in BAIL APPLN. 348/2022.

3. The aforesaid FIR was registered against the accused(s) Deepak Dabas @ Teetar and his associates namely, Pradeep, Surajpal @ Bhagta, Ajay Dabas, Pankaj @ Maharaj, Raj Kumar and the present applicant.

4. On 23.02.2022, after the investigation, chargesheet has been filed and the present applicant has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i)/3(2)/3(4) of the MCOCA.

5. The case of the prosecution is that the present applicant alongwith the co-accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar (the kingpin) and other associates had formed an interstate gang for gaining pecuniary benefits or undue economic alongwith other advantages for themselves and for their leader, i.e., Deepak Dabas @ Teetar. It is stated that the present applicant was involved in 5 cases of attempt to murder and robbery as per the list annexed with the status report filed for the purpose of the present application. The present applicant was arrested on 07.10.2021. As per the chargesheet, during the period from 2012- 2020, the co-accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar alongwith his associates including the present applicant were running an organised crime syndicate by indulging and committing various unlawful activities/offences by use of violence and/or threat of violence and/or intimidation and/or coercion and/or by other unlawful means with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantages for themselves. As per the case Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:29.04.2025 19:48:00 BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024 of the prosecution, the aforementioned crime syndicate was involved in 13

FIRs and the involvement of the present applicant was reflected in 2 FIRs, namely, FIR No. 110/2012 under Sections 365/392/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Rohini (South) and FIR No. 217/2016 under Sections 186/353/307/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at P.S. Begampur. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution qua the present applicant does not satisfy the requisite ingredients for offences under the MCOCA. It is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to place on record any material to show any nexus or involvement of the present applicant with the alleged crime syndicate.

7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in framing the charge under Section 3(1)(i) of the MCOCA. Section 3(1)(i) of the MCOCA, reads as under: “Punishment for organised crime- (1) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall,- (i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac;”

8. It is submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that death of any person has been caused and therefore the aforesaid provision is not applicable to the present applicant in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:29.04.2025 19:48:00 BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024 prosecution has not been able to show any material regarding any financial gain or otherwise, accruing to the present applicant. It is submitted that all the bank records of the applicant are already in possession of the prosecution and no transaction has been shown for any alleged criminal activity of the so- called crime syndicate. It is further submitted that there is no statement of any public witness to establish the allegation made qua the present applicant with respect to him being a member of the alleged crime syndicate or indicating anything done by him in furtherance of the activities of such crime syndicate.

9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the offence of “organised crime” and the prosecution has not been able to establish the existence of the requisite mens rea. It is pointed out that in absence of any recovery of illegal wealth or seizure of any kind of property alleged to have been acquired by commission of such organised crime, the requisite mens rea for acting as a member on behalf of the alleged crime syndicate cannot be attributed to the present applicant. It is further pointed out that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant to establish that he was a member of the alleged crime syndicate or had acted in furtherance of the activities of such crime syndicate. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not placed on record any Call Detail Records (hereinafter referred to as ‘CDR’) showing any connectivity between the present applicant and the co-accused persons. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant was in connection with the aforesaid co-accused persons with respect to operating a crime syndicate. It is further submitted that the confessional statements of all other co-accused persons have disclosed the name of the principal accused, i.e., Deepak Dabas @ Teetar and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:29.04.2025 19:48:00 BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024 they have not stated anything about the present applicant. It is submitted that even the alleged confessional statement of the present applicant is also to the effect that he knew the aforesaid co-accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar, however he has not admitted in any manner the fact of him being a part of the alleged crime syndicate. Another issue raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant was that the present applicant was arrested on 07.10.2021 and the statement under Section 18 of the MCOCA of the co-accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar was recorded on 02.12.2021. It is also submitted that the applicant had cooperated during the investigation and was arrested on 07.10.2021 at P.S. Kanjhawala itself when he voluntarily appeared before the Investigating Officer for investigation. It is submitted that this shows the bona fide of the applicant and the fact that he was not associated with the co-accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar. It is also pointed out that chargesheet also corroborates this fact. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution, in the police records, the applicant is not dangerous and does not operate with his accomplices and is not likely to jump bail which is mentioned in Court apprehension memo filed along with the chargesheet. It is further submitted that in one of FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 110/2012 under Sections 365/392/34 of the IPC, registered at PS Rohini (South), the present applicant has been acquitted.

10. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the present applicant has been in custody since 07.10.2021. The chargesheet in the present case was filed on 23.02.2022 and the charges were framed on 22.02.2024 after a delay of 2 years. Further, out of the 57 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:29.04.2025 19:48:00 BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024 has been examined till date and thus, the trial is not likely to be completed soon.

11. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments: i. ii. Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi1 Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Others2 iii. Avtar Singh Kochar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi3 iv. V. Javed Gulam Navi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Another4 State vs. Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar and Another5 vi. Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement6 vii. Pinki Irani vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi7 viii. Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav vs. State of Maharashtra and Another8 ix. Mohd. Tahir vs. State9 x. Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India10 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2316 2 2005 SCC OnLine SC 696 3 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7517 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 5 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8776 6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3721 7 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6722 8 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1359 9 2022 SCC OnLine Del 154 10 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:29.04.2025 19:48:00 BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

12. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the prosecution case against the present applicant is based on the confessional statement given by the co-accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar and the present applicant under Section 18 of the MCOCA. It is submitted that in his statement given by the co-accused Deepak Dabas @ Teetar, he stated that he had met the present applicant in 2012 and he alongwith him and two other associates had tried to kidnap one businessman, however, their car got struck and they were all caught and an FIR bearing no. 110/2012 under Sections 365/392/34 of the IPC was registered against them at P.S. South Rohini. He further stated that he, alongwith the present applicant and other co-accused persons was running a gang in the name of Ajay Dabas. Similarly, in the statement made by the present applicant under Section 18 of the MCOCA, he stated that he had met Deepak Dabas @ Teetar in 2012 and in the same year he alongwith Deepak Dabas @ Teetar had tried to kidnap one person on account of which, an FIR was registered at PS South Rohini. He further stated that he alongwith Deepak Dabas @ Teetar and other co-accused persons committed various offences and money earned out of these offences were used towards fulfilling his habits. He further stated that in 2016, he alongwith Deepak Dabas @ Teetar, Pradeep Jaglam and Sunil had an encounter with the police, in which he was shot and they were all caught. He further stated that in that encounter, arms were also recovered from him, for which a case was registered at PS Begumpur, i.e., FIR no. 217/2016 under Sections 186/353/307/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. He further admitted in his statement that since 2012 to 2016, he was involved in a world of crimes and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:29.04.2025 19:48:00 BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024 his source of income was the money earned from the crimes he committed. He further stated that thereafter Deepak Dabas @ Teetar did some wrong act with his friend and for 3 to 4 years he was not in talking terms with Deepak Dabas @ Teetar. He further stated that he was working in a hotel in Nainital and that all the money he had earned out of crime has been spent.

13. Learned APP for the State further submitted that the bar under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA is applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. It is further submitted that the prosecution need not show any pecuniary advantage to the applicant from the proceeds of the organised crime inasmuch as the applicant has been charged for the offence under Section 3(4) of MCOCA for being a member of an organised crime syndicate. The organised crime has been defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA which reads as under: “2(1)(e) “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;”

14. It is submitted that the continuing nature of unlawful activities of the organised crime syndicate can be an object for obtaining advantage and thus pecuniary benefit is not an essential ingredient for commission of an organised crime. It is further submitted that acquittal of the present applicant in one of the cases would not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the present application. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:29.04.2025 19:48:00 BAIL APPLN. 1618/2024 Bench of this Court in BAIL APPLN. 593/2024 dated 30.05.2024 in Dheerpal alias Kana vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi11.

15. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i. Dheerpal alias Kana vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi12 ii. Kavitha Lankesh vs. State of Karnataka and Others13 iii. State of Maharashtra vs. Jagan GagansinghNepali @ Jagya and Another14 iv. Abhishek vs. State of Maharashtra and Others15 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

16. The present applicant has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i)/3(2)/3(4) of the MCOCA, which read as under: “3. (1) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall,— (i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac; *** *** *** (2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime or any act preparatory to organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs. *** *** *** 11 2024:DHC:4461 12 2024:DHC:4461