Jayshree Kanabar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 15341 of 2023]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India, in Jayshree Kanabar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. _______ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 15341 of 2023], delivered its judgment on January 2, 2025, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s bail order granted to accused persons charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
Facts and Background
The case arose from the murder of Rajesh Haridas Kanabar, who was shot dead near the State Bank of India, Pune, on October 5, 2020. The deceased had a long-standing civil dispute over land in Bavdhan, Pune, with the families of the accused respondents. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 were alleged to be members of an organized crime syndicate led by accused No. 4, Hasmukh Patel. Initially, the charges did not include MCOCA offenses, but a supplementary charge sheet added these, alleging conspiracy and organized crime involvement in the murder.
The Bombay High Court granted bail to accused Nos. 1 and 2 (respondents Nos. 2 and 3), observing that there was no direct evidence linking them to the shooting or the gang leader and that witnesses did not attribute overt acts to them. The High Court also noted that accused No. 3 had a direct role due to contact with the gang leader.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court considered:
Whether the High Court erred in granting bail by effectively conducting a mini-trial and evaluating the evidence on merits.
The applicability of stringent bail conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA.
The propriety of the High Court making findings on the accused’s involvement at the bail stage, potentially prejudicing the prosecution.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, held that the High Court’s bail order was flawed because it involved an impermissible appraisal of evidence akin to a trial, which is beyond the scope of bail proceedings. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, courts must not delve into the admissibility or evidentiary value of materials, as these are matters for trial.
The Court underscored the mandatory application of the stringent bail conditions prescribed under MCOCA, which require careful consideration before granting bail. It criticized the High Court for making specific findings about accused No. 3’s role despite him not being a party before the High Court, and for failing to properly consider the seriousness of the MCOCA allegations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Jayshree Kanabar, the widow of the deceased, set aside the Bombay High Court’s bail order, and remanded the bail application for fresh consideration in light of MCOCA’s stringent bail provisions.
This judgment reinforces that:
Courts must strictly adhere to statutory bail conditions under special laws like MCOCA.
Bail hearings are not forums for deciding the merits or guilt of accused persons.
Judicial restraint is essential to prevent prejudice to the prosecution’s case during trial.
The ruling protects the integrity of criminal trials involving organized crime and ensures that bail is granted only after due compliance with legal safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments