TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Till the year 1998 he was a Minister in the Andhra Pradesh Government. In the year 1999 he was again elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Between the period from October, 1999 to November, 2001 he was again a Minister holding various portfolios. 4. One Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi (hereinafter referred to as 'Telgi') was arrested and proceeded against for alleged commission of offences of printing and distributing counterfeit stamps/papers on a very large scale. During investigations, stamps/papers worth Rs. 2,128 crores were seized. A second search on 11.1.2003 at one of the premises occupied by Telgi, conducted by the Special Investigating Team, resulted in the recovery of a micro audio cassette. The said cassette contained recording of alleged conversation between the appellant and Telgi. The date mentioned on the said cassette is 16.1.1998. On an analysis of the voice samples of the appellant, the Forensic Laboratory opined that the voice recorded in the said cassette was that of the appellant. 5. The case of the prosecution, based on the cassette, is that in the year 1998 the appellant was involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation statements of some of the witnesses and the said tape recorded conversation between the appellant and Telgi, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that, prima facie, there is material on record to show that the appellant had knowledge about the continuing organised crime of printing and selling of fake stamps; and he provided protection to continuing activities of sale of the fake stamps with the knowledge or having reason to believe that he was engaged in assisting Organised Crime Syndicate of Telgi. Thus, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant abetted the commission of organised crimes. 9. Mr. Umesh U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that on the basis of the material on record, including the statements of the four witnesses, referred to in the impugned order, no inference can be drawn that the appellant was a party to conspiracy or had abetted commission or facilitation of the crime with which Telgi or other co-accused were associated. It is urged that the allegation of demand of ransom of Rs. 2 crores by the appellant from Telgi has no nexus with the principal offence alleged under MCOCA. Drawing s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. However, as the provisions of MCOCA have been invoked in the instant case in addition to the afore- mentioned broad principles, the limitations imposed in the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of MCOCA cannot be lost sight of while dealing with the application for grant of bail. The relevant provision reads as under: (1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond, unless - (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of such release; and (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (5) ... (6) ... (7) ... 13. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in future must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence. 46. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the court while granting or refusing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
