Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Man with 24 Criminal Antecedents in MCOCA Case
Updated On : April 18, 2024
In a pivotal ruling, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to Dipak Mali, a man previously charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) for chain snatching, despite his extensive criminal record. Justice Madhav Jamdar issued the bail on considerations highlighting the stagnation of Mali's trial.
Mali has been in judicial custody since June 5, 2021, following his alleged involvement in a chain-snatching incident. The charge sheet was filed on August 13, 2021, but significant delays in the trial process, including failing to frame charges, prompted the court's decision. The list of witnesses proposed for the trial further suggested a prolonged process unlikely to conclude promptly.
The court scrutinized Section 21(4) of MCOCA, which generally enforces stringent bail conditions. However, Justice Jamdar noted that Mali's involvement was limited to chain snatching, which did not necessitate the harsh measures of Section 21(4).
Advocate Sana Raees Khan, representing Mali, argued that his client was only the motorcyclist during the incident and not the actual perpetrator. She also pointed out that despite Mali's previous involvement in 24 similar cases, he had been granted bail each time and had never been convicted.
The prosecution's attempt to underscore Mali's criminal history and the use of a stolen motorcycle in the crime did little to sway the court. The lack of progress in the trial and Mali's clean slate regarding convictions played a crucial role in the decision to grant bail.
Justice Jamdar set the bail at ₹50,000 and imposed conditions, including Mali's relocation to Ahmednagar from Pune, where the incidents occurred. This move underscores the court's effort to ensure justice is served promptly while balancing the rights of the accused against the public interest.
This decision significantly affirms the judiciary's role in protecting individual rights and administering justice fairly, even amidst serious allegations. It sets a precedent for handling similar cases, emphasizing the need for a timely and equitable judicial process.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Man with 24 Criminal Antecedents in MCOCA Case
April 18, 2024
In a pivotal ruling, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to Dipak Mali, a man previously charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) for chain snatching, despite his extensive criminal record. Justice Madhav Jamdar issued the bail on considerations highlighting the stagnation of Mali's trial.
Mali has been in judicial custody since June 5, 2021, following his alleged involvement in a chain-snatching incident. The charge sheet was filed on August 13, 2021, but significant delays in the trial process, including failing to frame charges, prompted the court's decision. The list of witnesses proposed for the trial further suggested a prolonged process unlikely to conclude promptly.
The court scrutinized Section 21(4) of MCOCA, which generally enforces stringent bail conditions. However, Justice Jamdar noted that Mali's involvement was limited to chain snatching, which did not necessitate the harsh measures of Section 21(4).
Advocate Sana Raees Khan, representing Mali, argued that his client was only the motorcyclist during the incident and not the actual perpetrator. She also pointed out that despite Mali's previous involvement in 24 similar cases, he had been granted bail each time and had never been convicted.
The prosecution's attempt to underscore Mali's criminal history and the use of a stolen motorcycle in the crime did little to sway the court. The lack of progress in the trial and Mali's clean slate regarding convictions played a crucial role in the decision to grant bail.
Justice Jamdar set the bail at ₹50,000 and imposed conditions, including Mali's relocation to Ahmednagar from Pune, where the incidents occurred. This move underscores the court's effort to ensure justice is served promptly while balancing the rights of the accused against the public interest.
This decision significantly affirms the judiciary's role in protecting individual rights and administering justice fairly, even amidst serious allegations. It sets a precedent for handling similar cases, emphasizing the need for a timely and equitable judicial process.
