A court here has granted bail to a man charged under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), noting that the prosecution was unable to prove the allegations against him.
Additional Sessions Judge Shivali Sharma was hearing the bail plea of Rajesh alias Honey, against whom Delhi Police registered a case under sections 3 and 4 of the MCOCA. The case against him was at the stage of arguments on framing charges.
Section 3 provides punishment for organised crime, while section 4 deals with possessing unaccountable wealth on behalf of members of an organised crime syndicate.
The court noted that the first allegation against Rajesh was of being a member of the Salman Tyagi Gang who used to extort money from builders, businessmen, financiers and bookies by threatening them with firearms.
“However, this allegation is not supported by any independent evidence collected by the investigating officer (IO). There is no statement of any such builders, businessmen, financiers or bookies who had been allegedly threatened or extorted by the accused,” it said.
Regarding the second allegation that Rajesh used the “illicit money” to purchase a car and construct a house, the court said that while the car “which was merely valued at Rs 1.5 lakh”? was purchased with a car loan, there were no documents to prove that he invested the money in the said construction.
The court further noted the third allegation that there were “huge” cash deposits in the accused’s bank account and his contention that the money was derived from his shop selling ‘chholey bhaturey’ was incorrect as the shop was closed 18 months back.
It said this claim also did not have “much conviction” as the alleged cash deposits of Rs 22.48 lakh in one account and around Rs 4.90 lakh in another were almost one year before the inquiry.
“Accordingly, even as per the case of the prosecution, the accused was running the shop of chholey bhaturey which was later closed down. Even income tax returns (ITRs) of the accused supporting his contention of earning from business have been collected by the IO and are a part of the charge sheet,” the court said.
So the cash deposits were “in line” with the purported business and it was “difficult to believe” that he had been depositing the illicit money earned from the activities of the organised crime syndicate, it said.
While Rajesh did not confess to his links with organised crime, he was a co-accused with the alleged kingpin only in one case, where he was already acquitted, the court said.
Also, there was nothing on record to prove that the case against him pertained to an activity of a crime syndicate, it added.
The court said there were three other criminal cases registered against him, but there was no material to show that the FIRs pertained to activities of any organised crime syndicate or the alleged gang.
“Two other criminal involvements of Rajesh relied upon by the prosecution are his matrimonial disputes. It is also very well on record that after 2017, the accused has not been engaged in any kind of criminal activities,” it said.
In an order passed on December 19, the court said that for the limited purpose of bail, there were “reasonable grounds for believing that Rajesh was not guilty of offences punishable under MCOCA for which he has been charge-sheeted.”
Also Read
It said there were no criminal complaints against him for the last six years and while granted bail in other cases where MCOCA was invoked, Rajesh did not commit any offence.
“I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant the benefit of bail to accused Rajesh pending trial. However, the bail has to be conditional considering the nature of the allegations against him and to ensure that he does not indulge in any kind of criminal offence in future,” it said.
“The present bail application is accordingly allowed and the accused is admitted to regular court bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety in the like amount,” the court added.
Other mandatory conditions for bail included the accused surrendering his passport, providing his mobile phone number, not leaving the national capital region, intimating the IO if his address was changed and not contacting the witnesses and the complainant, the court said.
