2021 INSC 0799
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1493 OF 2021
The State of Maharashtra         ..Appellant(S)
VERSUS
Pankaj Jagshi Gangar     ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned   order
dated   29.01.2019   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.
4639   of   2018   by   which   the   Division   Bench   by   way   of   an
interim   relief   directed   the   respondent   herein   –   accused   be
released  on   bail   in  Special   MCOC   No.24  of  2017  arising   out
of C.R. No.I­190 of 2017, registered with Kasarvadavli Police
1

Station,   the   State   of   Maharashtra   has   preferred   the   present
appeal. 
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present is a
glaring   example   of   fourm   shopping   by   the   accused   which
cannot   be   approved   at   all.   The   facts   speak   for   itself,   which
are as under:­
2.1 That  an  FIR was registered as C.R.  No.I­190 of 2017 for  the
offences  under   Sections  384,  386,   387   read  with  Section   34
of the IPC against three named accused persons namely Iqbal
Ibrahim Kaskar, Israr Jamil Sayyed and Mumtaz Ejaj Shaikh
@   Raju.   The   case   on   behalf   of   the   prosecution   has   been
elaborately  dealt with and considered by  the learned Special
Judge (MCOC), Thane, in his order dated 26.03.2018, passed
below Exh. 15 in MCOC No.24 of 2017, by which the learned
Special   Judge   rejected   the   application   submitted   by   the
respondent   herein   for   bail   and   therefore   the   same   is   not
repeated. However, it is to be noted that during the course of
the   investigation,   it   was   found   that   there   is   organized   crime
by   international   gangster   Shakil   Babu   Mohiddin   Shaikh   @
Chhota   Shakil   @   C.S.   and   Iqbal   Ibrahim   Kaskar   @   Iqbal
2

Hasan Shaikh Ibrahim and it was also found that from time
to   time,   the   respondent   herein   was   paying   the   amount   to
such   organized   crime  syndicate   and   other  gangs   which  they
used   to   use   the   said   amount   for   taking   help   of   other
members   by   paying   amount   to   them   and   it   was   also   found
that the respondent herein is running the Matka business in
Borivali,   Mumbai,   after   prior   sanction   the   provisions   of
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA)   came
to   be   applied.   After   investigation   a   charge   sheet   was
submitted   under   the   provisions   of   the   IPC   as   well   as   under
the   MCOCA.   The   respondent   herein   –   accused   filed   the   bail
application   before   the   learned   Special   Judge.   By   a   detailed
and   reasoned   judgment   and   order   and   after   considering   the
statements relied upon by  the prosecution which are part of
the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge rejected the said
bail application vide order dated 26.03.2018.     
3. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   rejection   of   the
bail application by the learned Special Judge, the respondent
herein   –   accused   approached   the   High   Court   by   way   of   bail
application   No.855   of   2018.   The   same   was   heard   by   the
3

learned   Single   Judge.   From   the   order   dated   13.07.2018
passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears and it cannot
be disputed that after hearing the learned counsel appearing
on   behalf   of   the   respondent   herein   ­   accused   at   length   and
when the High Court was not inclined to grant any relief, the
learned   counsel   on   instructions   withdrew   the   said   bail
application. Therefore, the aforesaid bail application came to
be dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Single Judge vide
order   dated   13.07.2018.   Immediately   on   withdrawal   of   the
aforesaid  bail application  the  respondent  – accused  filed  the
writ petition before the Division Bench of the High Court and
prayed for the following reliefs:­ 
“(a)   Strike   down   Section   23(1)(a)   of   the   MCOCA
being   absolutely   arbitrary,   unguided,
uncanalized   and   thus,   unconstitutional   being
violative   of   the   Articles   14,   19   and   21   of   the
Constitution   of   India;   or   to   save   it   from
unconstitutionality   to   read   down,   expound,
delineate   the   ambit   &   scope   of   the   words   'prior
approval' occurring in Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA
so as to ensure that the same is not rendered an
empty formality dependent upon whims, fancies,
prejudices and caprices of, the concerned officer; 
(b)   Strike   down   the   provision   of   Section   21(4)   of
MCOCA and declare the twin conditions imposed
for release on bail, as encapsulated therein, to be
4

unconstitutional   and   violative   of   Article   14   and
21 of the Constitution of India; 
(c)   To   quash   and   set   aside   the   impugned   prior
approval   Order   dated   10.10.2017   (Exh­B   supra)
issued   under   impugned   Section   23(1)(a)   qua   the
petitioner,   and   consequently   to   quash   the
proceedings qua the Petitioner in Special MCOCA
Case no.24 of 2017 under Section 384, 386, 387,
34 & 120 (b) of IPC and 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5)
of MCOCA, 1999 arising out of C.R. No. I/190 of
2017   (Exh­A   supra)   of   Kasarvadavli   Police
Station,   at   Thane   and   Charge   Sheet   dated
29.11.2017 (Exh­F supra) insofar as the offences
under   Sec   3(1)(ii),   3(2),   3(4)   and   3(5)   of   MCOCA
have been invoked qua him; 
(d) To set the petitioner  at liberty  on  such terms
as deemed fit in the interest of justice; 
(e) At the interim/ad­interim stage, pending final
disposal, of the instant Application, the Petitioner
may   please   be   released   from   custody   in   Special
MCOCA   Case   No.24   of   2017,   arising   out   of   C.R.
No.l­190/2017   registered   with   Kasarvadavli
Police   Station,   Thane,   on   such   interim   bail,   on
suitable   terms   and   conditions,   as   this   Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper;”
3.1 By the impugned order the High Court has directed to issue
RULE in the writ petition challenging vires of Section 23(1)(a)
of   the   MCOCA   and   on   the   prayer   to   strike   down   the
provisions of Section 21(4) of the MCOCA and to declare the
twin   conditions   imposed   for   release   on   bail   to   be
unconstitutional   and   violative   of   Articles   14   and   21   of   the
5

Constitution of India. Therefore, as such the constitutionality
of aforesaid two provisions is yet to be considered by the High
Court   in   the   pending   writ   petition.   However,   in   writ   petition
challenging   the   vires   of   aforesaid   two   provisions,   the   High
Court   has   also   considered   and   dealt   with   on   merits   the
sanction/approval   by   the   Additional   Commissioner   of   Police
to   invoke   the   provisions   of   MCOCA   and   though   a   detailed
appreciation of evidence is not required at this stage, and as
if the High Court was exercising the powers conferred under
Section   482   Cr.PC   and/or   considering   the   discharge
application,   the   High   Court   has   observed   that   the   order
passed   by   the   Additional   Commissioner   of   Police   dated
10.10.2017 granting approval for invocation of the provisions
of the MCOCA suffers from non application of mind. 
Thereafter   after   holding   so   and   while   admitting   writ   petition
challenging  vires of aforesaid two provisions, the High Court
has   granted   the   interim   relief   by   directing   that   the
respondent   herein   –   accused   be   released   on   bail   in   Special
MCOC   No.24   of   2017   arising   out   of   C.R.   No.I­190/2017.
Thus,   the   High   Court   has   as   such   granted   the   relief   of   bail
6

which   the   respondent   –   accused   could   not   get   before   the
learned Single Judge in the bail application. 
4. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court releasing the respondent herein – accused on bail that
too   by   way   of   interim   relief,   the   State   Government   has
preferred the present appeal. 
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – State
has   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case,   the   High   Court   has   committed   a
grave error in releasing the respondent – accused on bail and
that too by way of interim relief. 
5.1 It  is   submitted   that   while   releasing  the   accused   on   bail,   the
High   Court   has   not   at   all   considered   the   gravity   of   the
offences alleged. It is submitted that the High Court has also
not properly appreciated and considered the fact that earlier
by   a   detailed   judgment   and   order   the   learned   Special
Judge/MCOCA   Judge   rejected   the   bail   application   and   even
thereafter   the   accused   preferred   the   bail   application   before
7

the High Court, which was heard by the learned Single Judge
and after hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the   respective   parties   including   the   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   accused,   as   the   learned   Single
Judge   was   not   inclined   to   release   the   accused   on   bail,   the
accused   withdrew   the   said   bail   application   and   thereafter
filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   under   the   guise   of   challenging   the   vires   of   the
provisions   of   MCOCA   and   prayed   for   interim   relief   which
unfortunately has been granted by the Division Bench of the
High Court. 
5.2 It is submitted that the High Court has not at all considered
the   fact   that   after   the   investigation   a   detailed   charge   sheet
has   been   filed   by   the   investigating   agency   against   the
accused. 
5.3 It is submitted that as such releasing the accused on bail by
the Division Bench of the High Court by way of interim relief
is unsustainable in law in view of the decision of this court in
the   case   of   M/s   Neeharika   Infrastructure   Pvt.   Ltd.   Vs.
8

State   of   Maharashtra   and   Others   (Criminal   Appeal   No.330
of 2021 decided on 13.04.2021)
5.4 It is submitted that as such by the impugned order the High
Court   has   virtually   acquitted   the   accused   for   the   offences
under   the   MCOCA   and   that   too   at   the   interim   stage.   It   is
submitted   that   at   the   interim   stage,   the   High   Court   has   set
aside   the   approval/sanction   given   by   the   appropriate
authority   invoking   the   MCOCA,   which   is   inopportune   and
untimely. 
5.5 It is submitted that as such there was sufficient material on
record  collected  by   the   investigating   agency,   which   was  part
of   the   charge   sheet   that   the   respondent   –   accused   arranges
funds   for   the   expenses   of   purchasing   weapons,   information
and he is active member of the organized crime syndicate.
6. Making   the   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present appeal. 
9

7. The   present   appeal   is   opposed   by   Shri   Siddhartha   Dave,
learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondent – accused. 
7.1 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the
case and on considering the material available on record, the
High   Court   has   rightly   held   that   the   sanction   to   prosecute
the accused under the MCOCA is bad in law. It is submitted
that the High Court has specifically observed that there is no
tangible material to invoke the provisions of the MCOCA. It is
submitted that therefore the High Court has rightly released
the accused on bail. 
7.2 It is submitted that the respondent has been released on bail
by the High Court in the year 2019 and more than two years
have   passed   and   there   are   no   allegations   that   the   accused
has misused the liberty while granting bail to him. Therefore,
it   is   requested   not   to   cancel   the   bail   granted   by   the   High
Court,   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   136   of   the
Constitution of India.    
10

8. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the respective parties at length.
9. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   allegations
against the respondent – accused are very  serious in nature
i.e. offences under Sections 384, 386, 387 read with Section
34   of   the   IPC.   On   considering   the   material   on   record   the
investigating   agency   has   invoked   the   provisions   of   the
MCOCA.   After   investigation   a   charge   sheet   has   been   filed
against the accused for the offences under the IPC as well as
under   the   MCOCA.   By   the   impugned   order,   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   released   the   accused   on   bail
that too by way of interim relief. As per the law laid down by
this   Court   in   the   catena   of   decisions,   the   Division   Bench
ought   not   to   have   released   the   accused   on   bail   by   way   of
interim   relief   [see   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
M/s   Neeharika   Infrastructure   Pvt.   Ltd.   Vs.   State   of
Maharashtra   and   Others     (Criminal   Appeal   No.330   of   2021
decided on 13.04.2021)]
11

9.1 It is required to be noted that while releasing the accused on
bail that too by  way  of interim relief the High Court has not
at   all   considered   the   seriousness   of   the   offences   alleged
against the accused. After the investigation it has been found
that   the   respondent   –   accused   is   running   the   Matka
business;   is   providing   funds   to   the   Chhota   Shakil   and   his
gangs;  that   the  accused is  arranging  funds  for  the  expenses
of purchasing weapons, information and he is active member
of   organized   crime   syndicate.   By   the   impugned   order,   the
High   Court   has   observed   that   the   sanction   to   invoke   the
provisions   of   the   MCOCA   is   bad   in   law   as   there   is   no
evidence on record. Therefore, even the High Court has not at
all   considered   the   allegations   with   respect   to   other   offences
under the IPC. Even such an observation at the interim relief
stage   on   the   sanction   to   prosecute/invoke   the   provisions   of
MCOCA   was   not   warranted.   Virtually   the   High   Court   has
acquitted   the   accused   for   the   offence   under   the   MCOCA   at
the interim relief stage and has granted the final relief at the
interim   stage   exonerating   the   respondent   from   MCOCA,
which is wholly impermissible. 
12

9.2 It is required to  be noted that  by  the  detailed judgment  and
order,   the   learned   Special   Judge/MCOCA   refused   to   release
the accused on bail. The accused challenged the same before
the High Court. The bail application preferred by the accused
was heard by the learned Single judge. Learned Single Judge
was not inclined to release the accused on bail and therefore
the   accused  withdrew   the   same  and   thereafter   preferred  the
writ   petition   before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
under   the   guise   of   challenging   the   vires   of   MCOCA   and
without   noticing   the   above,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   has   released   the   accused   on   bail   that   too   by   way   of
interim   relief,   which   otherwise   the   accused   could   not   get
before   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   he   withdrew   the   bail
application. The aforesaid can be said to  be forum  shopping
by the accused which is highly deprecated and which cannot
be approved. On this ground also, the accused is not entitled
to be released on bail and the impugned order passed by the
High   Court   releasing   the   accused   on   bail   deserves   to   be
quashed and set aside. 
13

10. Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the accused that
as the accused is released in the year 2019 pursuant to the
impugned order passed by  the High Court and thereafter he
has not misused the liberty shown to him while releasing him
on   bail   therefore   the   impugned   order   may   not   be   quashed
and the bail may not be cancelled is concerned, it is required
to be noted that as per the law laid down by this Court in the
catena   of   decisions   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   wrong
order  releasing  the accused on bail and to cancel the bail of
the accused on misuse of liberty etc., both stand on different
footing and the different criteria shall be applicable. It is not
a   question   of   cancellation   of   bail   but   it   is   a   question   of
quashing   and   setting   aside   the   wrong   order   passed   by   the
court releasing the accused on bail. 
11. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the
present   appeal   succeeds.   The   impugned   order   dated
29.01.2019   passed   by  the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
in   Criminal   Writ   Petition   No.4639   of   2018   releasing   the
respondent   –   accused   on   bail   in   connection   with   Special
MCOC   No.24   of   2017   arising   out   of   C.R.   No.   I­190   of   2017
14

registered   with   Kasarvadavli   Police,   is   hereby   quashed   and
set aside. Consequently the respondent – accused is directed
to surrender forthwith and to face the trial. If the respondent
does not surrender forthwith, his presence be secured by the
concerned   Court   by   issuing   non­bailable   warrant.   The
present appeal is accordingly allowed.     
…………………………………J.
  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
  (SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi, 
December 03, 2021
15