Supreme Court of India
MANOJ RAMESH MEHTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1338
- Decided
- 25 November 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K G BALAKRISHNAN
Holding
The Supreme Court held that a prima facie case under section 3(2) of MCOCA exists and the High Court’s denial of bail was correct.
Summary
Manoj Ramesh Mehta, accused No. 42 in the Telgi stamp counterfeiting case, was charged under IPC sections 120(8), 255, 34, 109 and MCOCA sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(5) and 4. He applied for bail, arguing that his role was limited to legitimate business transactions and was merely peripheral. The High Court rejected the bail application, finding a prima facie case under MCOCA. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, concluding that the appellant had abetted and facilitated the organized crime, participated in money‑laundering, and attempted witness tampering, thereby satisfying the criteria of section 3(2) of MCOCA. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court’s decision was correct and dismissed the appeal, denying bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant’s alleged peripheral involvement suffices to grant bail under MCOCA.
- Whether a prima facie case under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act is established.
- Whether the High Court’s order denying bail can be interfered with under section 21(4) of MCOCA.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120(8), s. 255, s. 34
Subjects
bailMCOCAorganized crimeabetmentmoney launderingwitness tamperingcounterfeiting stampsTelgi case
Judgment
[2008] 16 $.C.R. 669
~ MANOJ RAMESH MEHTA A
'
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-(Criminal Appeal No. 1868 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 25, 2008
6
"f'
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
""'
BAIL - Accused arrested in 'Telgi case' on the charges
c
u/ss 120-B, 255134, 109 /PC rlw ss. 3(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(5) and 4 of
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act - Trial pending
- Application for bail rejected by High Court - HELD: The
plea of accused applicant that his involvement was only
peripheral cannot be accepted - High Court has rightly held
that a prima facie case u/s 3(2), MCOCA is made out against D
accused-appellant - This is not a fit case for interference with
_,;
order of High Court, particularly having regard to s.21(4) of
MCOCA - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act,
~
1999 - s. 21(4).
The appellant was arrested in connection with 'Telgi E
case' of counterfeiting stamps/stamp paper, for
commission of offences punishable u/ss 120-8, 255/34,
109 IPC read with ss. 3(1 )(ii), 3(2), 3(5) and 4 of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999. His
' ) application for bail having been rejected by the High F,
+ Court, he filed the instant appeal contending that the role
attributed to him was limited to alleged helping 'AKL Telgi'
In his legitimate business by booking consignments
which were imported through State Trading Corporation.
It was submitted that the case against him was only of a G
peripheral involvement for which maximum punishment
r would be three years and he had already spent a longer
period in jail; therefore, the High Court ought to have
released him on bail.
l
669 H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
1
''
I
A Dismissing the appeal, the Court
-1
HELD: The claim that the involvement of the
appellant was only peripheral cannot be accepted. The
High Court, on examination of the material, was satisfied
that a prima facie case was made out u/s 3.(2) of the
B Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999. The
material on record, prima facie, shows that though the
~
appellant was not directly connected with the printing
and selling of the fake stamps, he was associated with ~
'Telgi' and had abetted andfacilitated the commission of
c the organized crime, and he had also aided and.assisted
in the money-laundering operations and attempted to
interfere with the witnesses on behalf of 'Telgi' and his
family members. There is also prima facie mate.rial to
show that the payment for the purchase of printing
D machine for 'Telgi's' illegitimate activities was routed
through the appellant. Under section 3(2) of MCOC Act,
the minimum sentence is five years and the maximum can
be imprisonment for life. In the circumstances, this is not '-
a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court, -t
E particularly, having regard to the provisions of Section
21 (4) of MCOC Act. [Para 6] [672-G-H; 673-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal App.eal
No. 1868 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23 . 1,2007 of the
F
Hi9h Court of Judicature at Bombay ·in Crl. Application No. /..
"
1795 of 2006. -.+
Shekhar .Naphad~. Vimal Chandra $. Dave for the
Appellant.
G Sushil Kumar, Sandhya Goswami and B. Krishna Prasad
for the Respondents. I
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard parties.
H
MANOJ RAMESH MEHTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 671
[RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
t 2. The appellant is Accused No. 42 in Special Case No. A
2/2003, on the file. of Special Judge, MCOCA, Pune, arising
from CR No. 135/2002, Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. He
challenges the order dated 23.1.2007 passed by the High Court
of Bombay in Criminal Application No. 1795 of 2006, rejecting
his application for bail. 8
~
3. The appellant was arrested on 11.6.2003 in connection
~
~ with an FIR relating to counterfeiting stamps/stamp papers (Telgi
case) for offences under sections 120(8), 255, 34, 109 of IPC
read with sections 3(1 )(ii), 3(2), 3(5) and section 4 o.f c
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 ['MCOC
Act' for short]. The appellant alleges that an FIR was registere~
on 7.6.2002 and a charge-sheet was filed on 3.9.2002; that the.
charges framed were set aside by the High Court with a
direction to frame fresh charges; that a fresh charge-sheet was
filed on 15.9.2003; that the prosecution has cited eight hundred .
D
witnesses; that among the 68 accused, two have died, one has
,I
absconded, four have been discharged, 43 have been
1-
convicted on admission of guilt under section 229 Cr.P.C and
the remaining 18 are facing trial; and that there is no likelihood
of an early completion of trial. E
4. The appellant sought bail. He submitted that role
attributed to him was limited to alleged helping and assisting
of Abdul Karim L.Telgi in his legitimate business carried on
_;, under the name and style of 'Metro Corporation' by booking F
+ consignments which were imported through State Trading
Corporation; and that he was not a member of any organized
crime syndicate nor was in any way involved in the fake stamp
scam of A.K.L. Telgi. The appellant contends that even if the
prosecution case was accepted in entirety, it will not be G
sufficient to infer any abetment or facilitation with knowledge;
~
r- that the case against him is not one of direct involvement but
only a peripheral involvement for which the maximum
punishment would be thr,ee years; and that .he has spent a far
longer period in jail, having been arrested in June, 2003. He
H
672 SUPREME caU~T REPO~ts [200S] 16 S.C.R.
A therefore contends that the High Court ought to have released ~
him 011 bail. He referred to the statements of various witnesses ~-
~
viz., Rasna Bhomi, Ankleshsria, Suarna, N.M. Nagrani, and r
R.M. Bhojawar, to support his contention that what was
attributed to him was nothing more than ~ good business
B relationship and legitimate financial transactions with A.K.L.
Telgi and there was nothing to infer that he committed an
~
offence· of organized crime or to show that he was a member
of the organized crime syndicate of A.K.L.Telgi or that he -I,
abetted or knowingly facilitated the commission of an organized t
c crime. He also submitted that there is no likelihood of the trial
being completed in the near future and he has been in jail for
a period more.thanthe period for which he could be sentenced
for his alleged involvement.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for CBI pointed out
D that the association of appellant with A.K.L. Telgi was not merely
with the legitimate business front of A.KLTelgi; that the material
showed that he was an active participant in managing the affairs
of Telgi in relation to his organized crime syndicate, in particular --)-.
the court litigation; that when a FIR was filed on 7.6.2002, the
E appellant secured cash from A.K.L. Telgi's operators and tried
to get the case closed; and that the material collected clearly
showed his part in the conspiracy relating ~o money-laundering
and interference with the course of justice, as part of working
of an organized crime syndicate; and that" he had abetted or
F knowingly facilitated the commission of any organized-crime. ...
6. Having examined the material, it is not possible for us +
to accept the claim that the involvement of appellant was only
peripheral. The High Court on examination of the material wa_s
satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out under
G
section 3(2) of MCOC Act. The material prima facie shows that
though he was not directly connected with the prit:lting and ~
y
selling of the fake stamps, he was associated with A.K.L.Telgi
and had abetted and facilitated the commission of the
organized crime, and he had also aided and assisted in the
H
MANOJ RAMESH MEHTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 673
[RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
money-laundering operations and attempted to interfere with A
the witnesses on behalf of A.K.L. Telgi and his family members.
There is also prirna facie material to show that the payment for
the purchase of printing machine for Telgi's illegitimate
activities, was routed through the appellant. Under section 3(2)
of MCOC Act, the minimum sentence is five years and the B
maximum can be imprisonment for life. In the circumstances,
we feel that this is not a fit case for interference with the order
of the High Court, particularly, having regara to the provisions
of section 21(4) of MCOC Act.
7. The High Court has considered the matter in detail and C
has rightly concluded that this is not a fit case for granting bail.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
RP. Appeal dismissed.
·.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "bail"Sign in to search