Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1103 - SUPREME COURTContinuing unlawful activity - Offence of organised crime - whether an FIR under the 2015 Act (Special enactment) is maintainable in law or can be registered if there is no FIR registered against the Accused after the promulgation of the 2015 Act for any offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other statute? HELD THAT:- It is plain from a bare reading of the non-obstante Clause in the Sub-section that the power to grant bail by the High Court or Court of Sessions is not only subject to the limitations imposed by Section 439 of the Code but is also subject to the limitations placed by Section 20(4) of the 2015 Act. 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 based on reasonable grounds. The expression 'reasonable grounds' means 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 provisions requires existence of such facts and circumstances 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 provision is a sine qua non for granting bail under the 2015 Act. If the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS SHIVA @ SHIVAJI RAMAJI SONAWANE & ORS. ETC. AND MEHMOOD KHAN YAKUB KHAN PATHAN ETC. ETC. [2015 (7) TMI 1420 - SUPREME COURT] is looked into closely along with other provisions of the Act, the same would indicate that the offence of 'organised crime' could be said to have been constituted by at least one instance of continuation, apart from continuing unlawful activity evidenced by more than one chargesheets in the preceding ten years. If 'organised crime' was synonymous with 'continuing unlawful activity', two separate definitions were not necessary. The definitions themselves indicate that the ingredients of use of violence in such activity with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefit are not included in the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity', but find place only in the definition of 'organised crime'. What is made punishable Under Section 3 is 'organised crime' and not 'continuing unlawful activity'. If 'organised crime' were to refer to only more than one chargesheets filed, the classification of crime in Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) on the basis of consequence of resulting in death or otherwise would have been phrased differently, namely, by providing that 'if any one of such offence has resulted in the death', since continuing unlawful activity requires more than one offence. Reference to 'such offence' in Section 3(1) implies a specific act or omission. The dictum as laid by this Court in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane does not require any relook. The dictum in Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane is the correct exposition of law. The appeal stands disposed of.
|