The Delhi High Court’s recent bail order under the MCOCA revives the spirit of K.A. Najeeb

ON JULY 7, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to B. Mohanraj, a man who had spent nearly five years in custody without his trial even beginning. Mohanraj, described by the prosecution as the legal aide of an organised crime syndicate led by Sukesh Chandra Shekhar, had been arrested in September 2021 in connection with an extortion racket that allegedly impersonated senior government officials. He was booked under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’).

Justice Jalan’s order granting bail furthers a live, unresolved dispute within the Supreme Court itself over whether Article 21’s guarantee of a speedy trial can override the statutory bail restrictions built into laws like MCOCA.

Background

The case arose from a First Information Report (‘FIR’) registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell in August 2021, following a complaint by Ms. Aditi Singh alleging extortion. Sukesh Chandrashekhar was identified as the lead figure of a syndicate that ran an extortion racket by impersonating senior government officials, among other illegal activities carried out with his associates. B. Mohanraj, the petitioner, was arrested on September 5, 2021. 

The chargesheet was filed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the MCOCA. Mohanraj, a close aide of the syndicate who handled its legal affairs, allegedly assisted in concealing the proceeds of crime through illegal means. Over the course of his association with the syndicate, he is alleged to have helped channel funds through third parties to purchase real estate and vehicles, earning substantial commissions that themselves constituted proceeds of crime.

Mohanraj’s earlier bail application had been rejected by both the Special Court and the Delhi High Court in 2023. The present regular bail petition was accordingly filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) before the Delhi High Court.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, who appeared for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner had been incarcerated for nearly four years and ten months and the charges had only recently been framed by the Special Court and the prosecution proposes to examine 403 witnesses with a chargesheet running into 10,000 pages. Moreover, a co-accused had also been recently arrested. All this indicated that the trial was unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time period. He noted that the petitioner had no attributable role in the alleged extortion and there was no documentary evidence and money trail that could link the petitioner to the organized crime syndicate, and that the prosecution’s case relied primarily on the retracted confessional statement recorded under Section 18 of the MCOCA.