### Habitual Offending and Previous Abscondence Negates Statutory Bail Threshold Under MCOCA Section 21(4)

The applicant, alleged to be the kingpin of an organized crime syndicate active since 2003, sought regular bail in FIR No. 55/2016.

The FIR was registered under Sections 3(1), 3(4), and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) following allegations of "continuing unlawful activity" including murder, extortion, and kidnapping.

The applicant argued for bail based on a custody period of over nine years, the fact that 9 out of 11 co-accused were granted bail, and the lack of incriminating statements from the 34 (out of 88) witnesses examined so far.

The State opposed, citing the applicant’s role as the kingpin, three prior convictions, five pending trials, and the fact that he previously absconded for four years while on bail, during which time he allegedly committed another murder.

Whether the applicant satisfied the mandatory "twin conditions" for grant of bail under Section 21(4)(b) of MCOCA.

Whether the period of custody and the principle of parity with co-accused outweighed the gravity of the offenses and the applicant's past conduct.

The court primarily applied Section 21(4)(b) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), which mandates a higher threshold for bail than common criminal statutes, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe the accused is not guilty and is not "likely to commit any offence" while on bail.

The court also applied Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

It further relied on the principles from *State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi*, *Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh*, *Neeru Yadav v. State of UP*, and *Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi*, which emphasize considering criminal antecedents and public safety over mere numerical comparisons of custody periods or parity.

The Court observed that MCOCA is a special legislation requiring strict adherence to the stringent conditions of Section 21(4)(b).

It rejected the applicant's plea for parity and the argument based on lengthy incarceration, noting that the applicant was identified as the "kingpin" of the syndicate with a history of three convictions.

The Court highlighted the applicant’s past conduct—specifically absconding for four years and allegedly committing murder while on previous bail—as a critical factor.

Because of this "demonstrable threat to public safety," the Court found no "reasonable grounds" to believe the applicant was not guilty or would abstain from crime if released.

Consequently, other factors like the duration of trial and the release of co-accused became "insignificant" compared to the gravity of the risk to the community.

The Court held that the applicant’s role as a kingpin and his history as a "habitual and hardened offender" overrode considerations of parity or time served.

The bail application was dismissed.