Mr. Arun Khatri, Ms. Poonam Rani, Ms. Shelly Dixit, Ms. Anoushka Bhalla, Advocates v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Judgment

1. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 read with Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999,2 seeking grant of regular bail in the proceedings arising from FIR No. 55/2016 dated 19th April, 2016 registered at P.S. Crime Branch under Sections 3/4 of MCOCA. Prosecution’s Case

2. The factual background leading to the filing of the FIR, as per the Prosecution 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 “CrPC” 2 “MCOCA” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:07.04.2025 22:29:30 BAIL APPLN. 3348/2023 Page 1 of 18 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 is an active gang member of the Manoj Morkheri syndicate. He is accused of playing a direct role in multiple offences, including those involving murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping for ransom, and extortion, across different jurisdictions. His arrest in the present case led to his being committed to trial before the Court of the Additional Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:07.04.2025 22:29:30 BAIL APPLN. 3348/2023 Page 2 of 18 Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, where the matter is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence.

2.4 The Applicant has a serious criminal history, including his conviction

for murder in FIR No. 215/2010 registered at P.S. Bahadurgarh, Haryana, under Sections 302/307 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, for which he has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He has also been named and arrested along with co-accused Manoj Morkheri in FIR No. 47/2011 at P.S. Dhaula Kuan under Sections 364A/120B/34 IPC, and in FIR No. 158/2012 at P.S. Kundli under Sections 386/506 IPC. In light of this record, the Applicant is a habitual and hardened criminal. FACTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT:

3. Mr. Arun Khatri, counsel for the Applicant, urges the following grounds for seeking grant of bail:

3.1 Long Period of Custody and Delay in Trial: The Applicant was arrested on 2nd June, 2016, and has already been in custody since then for over 8 years. The trial is far from conclusion, with only 30 out of 60 listed witnesses having been examined so far, and no indication that the remaining evidence will be recorded in the near future. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:07.04.2025 22:29:30 BAIL APPLN. 3348/2023 Page 3 of 18 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 of these elements is made out in the present case against the Applicant.

3.3 Absence of evidence to establish Continuing Unlawful Activity and membership in an Organized Crime Syndicate: To establish continuing unlawful activity and membership in an organized crime syndicate, it is imperative that there are multiple chargesheets in which the competent court has taken cognizance. In the present case, the Applicant is not involved in any continuing unlawful activity, nor is he a member of any organized crime syndicate. Although the charge order dated 9th March, 2022 was passed against multiple accused, the Trial Court did not classify the Applicant as a member of the syndicate. Further, while the FIR references eight earlier cases, none pertain to the Applicant. Even the 23 additional FIRs later relied upon do not implicate him. The only case cited against him is FIR No. 47/2011, in which the Applicant was acquitted prior to registration of the present FIR under MCOCA. Significantly, this FIR cannot be considered against the Applicant on the grounds of parity, as it was not considered in