New Delhi, Jan 3 (IANS): The Supreme Court has ruled that when there is an embargo put in by a specific provision for the grant of bail, the power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to the satisfaction of such conditions mentioned under the special enactment.

"When there is an embargo put in by a specific provision under a special enactment in the matter of grant of bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, the power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in such specific provision," a bench of Justices C.T. Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Karol said.

The Justice Ravi Kumar-led Bench was hearing a special leave petition seeking cancellation of the respondents’ bail, contending that the bail order is an outcome of consideration akin to a mini-trial.

There was a long-drawn civil dispute between the parties and the accused shot the victim, who was purchasing fruits, with a country-made pistol, killing him.

Initially, a charge sheet was filed against the accused without accusation of commission of offences under MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999). Later in April 2021, a supplementary charge sheet under MCOCA was filed against the accused alleging that they were members of an ‘organised crime syndicate’ and based on the conspiracy hatched between them, they killed the victim for unlawful gains.

Before the apex court, the accused said that initially they were not charged under MCOCA but these were inserted later, through a supplementary report, solely with the intention to ensure non-grant of bail.

They added that the bail conditions were adequate and appropriate to ensure that the accused would not flee from justice and would face the trial.

In its judgment, the top court said: “There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that since MCOCA is involved in this case on hand, the accused could not have sought for bail in the exercise of the discretion available under Section 439, Cr.P.C., in the matter, in view of the rigours under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA."

The Supreme Court noted that the public prosecutor resisted the prayer for the grant of bail and prayed the Bombay High Court to consider the question of grant of bail taking into account the rigour of Section 21(4) of the MCOCA.

“In fact, the impugned judgment would reveal that the said contention was taken note of by the High Court. At the same time, it is a fact that the impugned order did not reflect such consideration as has been required in respect of matters involving offences under MCOCA,” the top court said.

It added that the impugned order would reveal that bail was granted to the accused in the case on hand, not on the ground of violation of fundamental rights and instead, the high court has considered the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence against them available on record.

Further, the apex court said that the admissibility and evidentiary value are matters to be decided during the trial and are not matters for consideration at the bail stage.

“The High Court had transgressed into impermissible area inasmuch as the question of sufficiency or otherwise and correctness of the prosecution case were considered while passing the impugned order instead of confining the consideration in regard to the question of satisfaction or otherwise of the stringent conditions in the matter of grant of bail where offences under MCOCA are involved,” it said.

Setting aside the impugned bail order, the Supreme Court ordered the restoration of the bail matter into the file of the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration.

"In this regard, the parties shall appear before the High Court on 29.01.2025 and the High Court may fix a date for hearing of that application. (I)n view of the fact that the crime is of the year 2020, the High Court is requested to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order,” it directed.