Delhi Court Denies Bail To Nasir Gang 'Kingpin', Say Long Incarceration Alone Not Enough For Relief Under MCOCA
A Delhi Court has rejected the bail plea of Abdul Nasir, alleged kingpin of the “Nasir Gang”, observing that long incarceration cannot be a stand-alone consideration while granting relief under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
Special Judge Gaurav Rao of Rouse Avenue Courts observed that long incarceration has to be weighed with the nature of offence and the material against the accused.
The Court was dealing with Nasir's bail plea in an FIR registered by the Crime Branch under Sections 3 and 4 of the MCOCA and Section 174A of IPC.
Nasir had claimed that he had remained in judicial custody for around five years and eight months, barring the period during which he was on interim bail from May 12.
He argued that the MCOCA case was legally infirm since the prosecution relied upon predicate FIRs, the latest of which allegedly dated back to 2015, resulting in a gap of more than four years before registration of the MCOCA FIR.
He further argued that one of the predicate cases had ended in his acquittal and that the remaining cases were pending trial. It was his case that mere registration of FIRs or pendency of criminal trials could not be treated as proof of “organised crime”.
Denying bail to Nasir, the Court noted that the MCOCA came into force in Delhi in 2002, and that the prosecution had relied upon several criminal cases involving Nasir and members of the alleged syndicate, including cases registered after the enactment of the MCOCA.
The Court particularly noted the prosecution's reliance on FIRs involving serious offences, including murder, and observed that the alleged criminal activities of the syndicate continued even after MCOCA was invoked.
“Hiatus of 4 years, as was pointed by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant is of no consequence,” the Court held.
It added that there was no requirement under the MCOCA that a person should indulge in criminal activity “continuously, on a regular basis/interval”.
“The continuous criminal, unlawful activities from 2006 till 2015, even if FIR in 2017 is ignored, coupled with the manner in which the unlawful activities were committed i.e. use of violence, with different objective of causing pecuniary gain as well as to establish dominion over other gangs as well as for spreading fear in the society compelling it to succumb to its demand, unlawful demand fulfils the requirement for invoking MCOCA,” the Court said.
The judge also rejected Nasir's argument that his acquittal in one of the predicate FIRs eliminated that case from consideration for determining “continuing unlawful activity”.
It observed that the MCOCA requires filing of chargesheets and taking of cognizance, and does not make conviction a prerequisite.
Further, the judge acknowledged that Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to speedy trial and that prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot ordinarily be allowed to assume the character of punishment merely because of the passage of time.
However, it held that in cases under special statutes such as the MCOCA, which contain stringent restrictions on bail, prolonged incarceration cannot by itself become the determinative ground for release.
“The facts of each case must be assessed independently and the rights of the society, public at large must be balanced with those of the accused, particularly in cases involving heinous offences. Long incarceration cannot be a stand-alone consideration and requires to be weighed viz-a-viz the nature of offence and the material against the accused. Considering the past involvements of the applicant he rather appears to be a threat to the society,” the Court said.
It observed that since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider the aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the applicant, his propensities and the nature & manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence.
The Court concluded that Nasir's past involvements, that too in heinous offences and his role of being the syndicate's kingpin, certainly curtailed the court's hands in recording any finding in his favour.
Counsel for State: Akhand Pratap Singh, Ld. SPP
Counsel for Accused: Advocate Abhishek Yadav