Delhi High Court
Baharat @ Popat vs State on 30 August, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 17th August 2010
Date of Order: August 30th , 2010
+ Bail Appln. No.1943/2009
% 30.08.2010
Baharat @ Popat ...Petitioner
Versus
State ...Respondent
Counsels:
Mr. Baldev Raj for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for respondent/State.
AND
+ Bail Appln. No.684/2010
%
Vinay ...Petitioner
Versus
State Govt. of NCT Delhi ...Respondent
Counsels:
Mr. Baldev Raj for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for respondent/State.
AND
+ Bail Appln. No.2422/2009
%
Risalat Hussain ...Petitioner
Versus
State NCT of Delhi ...Respondent
Counsels:
Mr. MM Singh for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for respondent/State.
AND
+ Bail Appln. No.156/2010
%
Rajesh @ Dil Dil ...Petitioner
Bail Appln Nos.1943.09,684.10,2422.09,156.10 & 683.10 Page 1 Of 7
Versus
State ...Respondent
Counsels:
Mr. Baldev Raj for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for respondent/State.
AND
+ Bail Appln. No.683/2010
%
Sumitra ...Petitioner
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi ...Respondent
Counsels:
Mr. Baldev Raj for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for respondent/State.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of these five bail applications preferred by
the accused persons/ petitioners who are booked in FIR No.54 of 2007 under Sections
3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA Act and are facing trial. The accused persons are in jail for
about last three years and the trial is going on.
2. A perusal of record would show that the accused Vijay was involved in 30 cases
at different police stations in Delhi. These cases are of theft, Arms Act, NDPS Act and
Bail Appln Nos.1943.09,684.10,2422.09,156.10 & 683.10 Page 2 Of 7
preparation of decoity. The majority of cases are of theft. Accused Baharat was involved
in 15 cases of similar nature. Accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil was involved in 37 cases mostly
of theft and criminal assault while committing theft, one case of attempt to murder and
one under Excise Act, one case for preparation for decoity. Accused Sumitra was
involved in 22 cases mostly under Excise Act and two cases under NDPS Act, one of
criminal assault and theft. Accused Risalat Hussain was involved in one case under
NDPS Act.
3. The evidence gathered against the accused persons shows that the accused
persons were running a organized crime syndicate and these accused persons were
indulging in chain-snatching using high- powered motorcycles. They were also involved
in other crimes under Excise Act and under NDPS Act. It was from these criminal acts
including that of chain snatchings that they received money and were leading a lavish
lifestyle. They had a widespread network including of those persons who were lending
their names and financing vehicles and received stolen property. They had earned a lot
of money from criminal activities and purchased costly motorcycles and cars. Their crime
list included many criminal cases of attempt to murder, chain snatching, Arms Act, NDPS
Act, preparation to commit decoity. Along with the chargesheet, a list of cases pending
against each of the accused person was also filed.
4. Accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil was a BC of Police Station Mangolpuri area. He had
been convicted in four cases of chain snatching during last five years. A scrutiny of
modus operandi of gang would reveal that he was running an organized syndicate for
committing these crimes. Police seized four Pulsar motorcycles bearing numbers DL8S
AK 0681, DL8S AK 0684, DL4SBD 5608 and DL4S BD 3239 from them. Out of these
four motorcycles, two belonged to Somwati and the other two belonged to Sumitra, both
members of this syndicate. Police also found two cars, one Alto DL9C P6763 and
Bail Appln Nos.1943.09,684.10,2422.09,156.10 & 683.10 Page 3 Of 7
another Santro DL4CS 4862 being used for criminal activities and both were financed by
Somwati. Accused Risalat Hussain was the person who used to help these criminals by
lending his name for purchase of the cars and motorcycles. He had made a confessional
statement to the learned ACMM wherein he admitted that the money for purchase of
cars / motorcycles was paid to him by Mrs. Somwati, another member of the syndicate
and he used to lend his name for purchase of these vehicles. He opened an account in
which the members of this crime syndicate used to deposit money so that the
installments of cars and motorcycles could be paid. He also confessed before learned
ACMM that he was given a sum of Rs.15,000/- for getting an FD so that he could stand
surety for husband of member of the syndicate, involved in crime.
5. A perusal evidence as stated in the chargesheet coupled with the confessional
statement of accused Risalat Hussain would show that the accused persons belonged to
an organized crime syndicate for committing crimes, being managed in a businesslike
manner. The motorcycles and cars being used by the syndicate were of make Bajaj
Pulsar costing between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. The highest speed of these
motorcycles is 145 km/h. The crime of chain-snatching at the roads of Delhi and around
was being done by the members of the syndicate using these motorcycles. Two cars
were also being used for criminal activities. These cars were also purchased in the name
of accused Risalat Hussain who used to a part of this syndicate and admitted that the
vehicles were being purchased in his name, though finance was coming from other
members of syndicate.
6. Section 17 Sub-section(2) provides special rules of evidence of MCOCA Act and
reads as under:
"17. Special Rules of evidence.
(1) xxxxxxx
Bail Appln Nos.1943.09,684.10,2422.09,156.10 & 683.10 Page 4 Of 7
(2) Where it is proved that any person involved in an organised
crime or any person on his behalf is or has at any time been in
possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot
satisfactorily account for, the Special Court shall, unless contrary
is proved, presume that such property or pecuniary resources
have been acquired or derived by his illegal activities".
7. This Court during arguments on bail applications asked the counsel for the
accused persons to explain possession of these costly motorcycles and cars and the
purpose for which they were purchased and the source of funds for purchase of cars and
motorcycles and the source of income of any of the accused person but no source of
income of any of the members of syndicate was disclosed to the Court. Even otherwise,
Section 17(2) puts onus on the accused persons to prove that they had sufficient
pecuniary resources for acquiring these properties. Since prima facie accused persons
failed to disclose the source of their income, it has to be presumed that these properties
were acquired from the earning of the syndicate for purposes of committing more crimes.
8. Section 21 of MCOCA Act lays down stringent rules for grant of bail. The
Supreme Court in Chenna Boyanna Krishan Yadav v State of Maharashtra (2007(1)
SCC 242 made following observations:
"13. It is plain from a bare reading of the non obstinate clause in
the sub-section that the power to grant bail by the High Court or
the Court of Sessions is not only subject to the limitations imposed
by Section 439 of the Code but is also subject to the limitation
placed by Section 21 (4) of MCOCA apart from the grant of
opportunity to the Public Prosecutor the other twin conditions are
the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The
conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction
contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be
Bail Appln Nos.1943.09,684.10,2422.09,156.10 & 683.10 Page 5 Of 7
based on reasonable grounds. The expression reasonable
grounds mean something more than prima facie grounds. It
contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief
contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and
circumstanced as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction
that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus
recording of findings under the said provisions is a sine qua non
for grating bail under MCOCA."
9. The learned counsel for accused/petitioner Rajesh @ Dil Dil has submitted that
under similar circumstances, accused Somwati was granted bail by this Court. I have
perused the order dated 3rd December 2009. Accused Somwati was owner of two
motorcycles and two cars. The order dated 3rd December 2009 is totally silent about the
effect of Section 21 and Section 17(2) of MCOCA Act. It seems that the learned State
counsel had not brought these provisions to the notice of the Court. Moreover, the Court
while granting bail had not given its finding as required under Section 21 of MCOCA that
there was no possibility of accused Sumitra indulging into crime further if granted bail
and that prima facie she was not involved in the crime under MCOCA. Thus Sumitra
was granted bail on considerations other than those relevant under MCOCA. I find that
the order of bail of Sumitra is of no help to the present accused persons. Similarly order
passed in respect of other accused Sunil Kumar by this Court is also of no help because
in Sunil Kumar's case prime consideration was that there was no sanction given by the
competent authority for his prosecution under MCOCA. In view of no sanction it was
stated that prima facie he was not guilty of offences under MCOCA. However, the State
counsel has brought to my notice that sanction order was passed by competent authority
under Section 23(2) of MCOCA, as applicable to Delhi, against all the accused persons
namely Lal Singh, Somwati, Ajay @ Vikram @ Gainda, Vijay, Sandeep @ Kala, Anil,
Sunny and Ram Kishan on 16th January 2007. A copy of another order dated 27th July,
2009 has been placed on record and showing that permission under Section 23(2) was
Bail Appln Nos.1943.09,684.10,2422.09,156.10 & 683.10 Page 6 Of 7
also given in respect of (i) Rajesh @ Dil Dil, (2) Sandeep, (3) ajay @ Vickram (4) Vinay
(5) Risalat Hussain (6) Somwati (7) Lal Singh (8) Sumitra (9) Sunil (10) Baharat. Copy of
these orders have been placed before me.
10. It seems that the State counsel earlier failed to bring to the notice of this Court
that even in the case of Sunil Kumar, sanction order under Section 23(2) of MCOCA was
obtained from the competent authority.
11. I consider that it is not possible for this Court to come to a conclusion that in case
applicants are granted bail, they would not indulge into similar kinds of activities again. I
also find that it is not a case that this Court can come to conclusion that the accused
persons were not prima facie involved in offences under MCOCA. I, therefore, find no
reason to allow the bail applications of above accused persons. The applications are
hereby dismissed.
August 30, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Bail Appln Nos.1943.09,684.10,2422.09,156.10 & 683.10 Page 7 Of 7
