Forum Shopping in Criminal Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail in MCOCA Case

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, canceled the bail granted to an accused under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), highlighting the misuse of legal procedures through forum shopping. The judgment reinforces the principle that accused persons cannot manipulate the judicial process by withdrawing bail applications from one bench and seeking relief from another. The case involved allegations of extortion, financial support to organized crime syndicates, and running illegal gambling businesses.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR (C.R. No. I-190 of 2017) registered under Sections 384, 386, and 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against three accused, including the respondent, Pankaj Jagshi Gangar. During the investigation, it was discovered that the accused was involved in funding organized crime syndicates linked to international gangster Chhota Shakil. The authorities applied provisions of the MCOCA after obtaining the necessary sanction.

The accused initially applied for bail before the Special MCOCA Court, which rejected the plea, citing serious allegations and material evidence in the charge sheet. The accused then moved the Bombay High Court, where a Single Judge Bench heard the case. However, when the court indicated an unfavorable outcome, the accused withdrew the bail application.

Immediately afterward, the accused approached a Division Bench of the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the MCOCA. The Division Bench, while issuing a rule on the constitutional challenge, granted bail as an interim relief, which the State of Maharashtra challenged before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Presented by the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra, represented by counsel, argued:

The accused was involved in serious crimes, including organized crime, extortion, and funding criminal syndicates.
The High Court ignored the findings of the Special MCOCA Court, which had rejected the bail application on merits.
The accused engaged in forum shopping by withdrawing the bail application from a Single Judge Bench and filing a writ petition before a Division Bench.
The High Court granted interim bail without considering the seriousness of the allegations and evidence against the accused.
The ruling effectively acquitted the accused under MCOCA at the interim stage, which was legally impermissible.

Arguments Presented by the Accused

The accused, represented by Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, countered the arguments with the following points:

The High Court correctly found that the sanction under MCOCA was flawed and lacked tangible evidence.
The accused had been on bail since 2019, and there were no allegations of misuse of liberty.
The constitutional validity of MCOCA provisions was under challenge, and granting bail was a necessary relief.
Since the accused had no direct role in violent crimes, bail should not be canceled.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, delivered a detailed judgment canceling the bail. The key findings were:

The allegations were serious, involving organized crime, extortion, and funding of criminal activities.
The High Court erred in granting interim bail while the constitutional challenge was pending.
The accused engaged in forum shopping, which is a highly unethical practice.
By granting interim bail, the High Court essentially acquitted the accused of MCOCA charges at a preliminary stage.
The accused must surrender immediately, failing which the authorities should secure his presence through a non-bailable warrant.

The Court observed:

“The accused withdrew the bail application before a Single Judge Bench when it was evident that relief would not be granted. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before a Division Bench under the guise of challenging the constitutionality of MCOCA, which resulted in bail as an interim relief. Such forum shopping is highly deprecated and cannot be permitted.”

Key Legal Precedents Considered

M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra – The Supreme Court emphasized that interim relief in criminal cases must not amount to an acquittal.
State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subbarao – The Court ruled that serious offenses require careful consideration before granting bail.
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Delhi – Bail should not be granted without assessing the gravity of the offense.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order granting bail and directed the accused to surrender immediately. If the accused fails to comply, the trial court was instructed to issue a non-bailable warrant.

This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial integrity must be maintained and that accused persons cannot exploit procedural loopholes to secure bail unjustly. The ruling serves as a precedent against forum shopping and emphasizes that High Courts must carefully scrutinize interim bail applications in serious criminal cases.

Petitioner Name: The State of Maharashtra.
Respondent Name: Pankaj Jagshi Gangar.
Judgment By: Justice M. R. Shah, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 03-12-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: the-state-of-maharas-vs-pankaj-jagshi-gangar-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-12-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjiv Khanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category