“Caste, Tribe Or Community Can Never Constitute Incriminating Material”: Bombay High Court Rejects Bail Pleas Of Accused Under MCOCA

The Bombay High Court has held that a person's caste, tribe or community can never constitute incriminating material and that no adverse inference can be drawn on that basis. The Court observed that the prosecution must stand or fall on legally admissible evidence while rejecting bail applications filed by three accused booked under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar was hearing bail applications filed in connection with a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 310(2), 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOCA. The prosecution alleged that four masked persons had forcibly entered the informant's house, assaulted the inmates, took away gold ornaments, cash and other articles, and fled with the informant's motorcycle. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. The accused were subsequently identified during the investigation.

The applicants contended that they had been implicated in the case because they belonged to the Pardhi community. They argued that the nature of some previous offences, including allegations of petty theft, does not demonstrate an organised crime syndicate or continuing unlawful activity undertaken for pecuniary gain.

The Court observed that the fact that several FIRs were initially registered against unknown persons did not, by itself, render subsequent charge-sheets irrelevant. At the same time, the registration of multiple FIRs could not substitute for qualifying charge-sheets, cognizance and material establishing a nexus with the alleged syndicate.

The Court agreed that the subsequent identification of the accused persons, after initial registration of FIR against unknown persons, requires careful scrutiny, but it also issued a note of caution, observing:

“… the FIR was admittedly against unknown persons. That circumstance requires careful scrutiny of the subsequent identification, but it does not by itself render the identification unacceptable.”

Regarding the allegation that the applicants were implicated because they belong to the Pardhi community, the Court observed:

“A person's caste, tribe or community can never constitute incriminating material and no adverse inference can be drawn from it. The prosecution must stand or fall only on legally admissible evidence.”

However, the Court held that the allegation of discrimination is not supported by material sufficient to displace the identification, the charge-sheets and the alleged inter se association. The applicants remained at liberty to establish their defence during trial through cross-examination of witnesses and investigating officers.

The Court further held that the statutory conditions for bail under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA were not satisfied, as it could not record reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants were not guilty of the alleged offences or that they were unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Accordingly, the Court rejected all three bail applications.

Case Title: Shrihari Hardas Chavan v. State of Maharashtra [Bail Application No. 812 of 2026] and Connected Matters.