Bombay HC Grants Bail To Accused Rearrested Under MCOCA

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has granted bail to one Rahul Dighe, who was re-arrested by the police after invoking the stringent provisions of the MCOCA, for allegedly assaulting a person in 2021, observing that “considering the large pendency, there is no possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time”.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai granted bail to Dighe earlier this month observing: “The applicant (Dighe) is in custody since 16/12/2021. Charge is not yet framed and considering the large pendency, there is no possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.”

2021 assault case

The HC was hearing a bail plea filed by Dighe through advocate Satyavrat Joshi seeking bail in a case registered by Meghwadi police station in 2021 under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for assault.

According to the prosecution, an FIR was registered on a complaint by one Raj Verma alleging that on the intervening night of April 17 and 18, 2021, when he and his friend, Naresh were returning from a friend’s party, Dighe and co-accused Sandeep Pawar and Tushar assaulted them.

Initially, the case was registered under the IPC and Dighe was arrested on May 18, 2021. He was released on bail on June 16, 2021.

Adv argues FIR does not mention the name of the alleged gang leader

Subsequently, the police invoked MCOCA and he was re-arrested on December 16, 2021. His advocate Satyavrat Joshi argued that the FIR does not mention the name of the alleged gang leader, Suraj Pote. The court noted in its order: “It is pertinent to note that the FIR does not disclose the name of the gang leader – Suraj Pote. The statement of the other injured witnesses was recorded in July, 2021 i.e, almost after a period of three months.”

Justice Prabhudessai also took into consideration that Dighe was in custody since December 2021 and the charges are not yet framed in the case and hence there is no possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.

“Considering the above facts and circumstances and particularly the nature of the accusations and the material in support thereof, in my considered view, this would be a fit case to exercise discretion under section 439 of CrPC,” the court said while directing his release on furnishing personal bonds of ₹50,000.