Latest news with #MaharashtraControlofOrganisedCrimeAct
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
SC staying precedential effect of Bombay HC acquittals in train blast case is worrying
Last week, the Supreme Court (SC) stayed the precedential effect of a carefully reasoned Bombay High Court (HC) verdict that acquitted 12 persons accused in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings. The stay, without giving substantive reasons, is worrying. The case arose out of one of the most horrific terror attacks India has seen. On July 11, 2006, a series of seven coordinated bomb blasts ripped through compartments of Mumbai's trains, killing 187 people and injuring over 800. The Anti-Terrorism Squad of the Maharashtra Police took over the investigation, resulting in the arrest of 13 persons. The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), as well as the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In 2015, a special court convicted 12 of them, sentencing five to death and the rest to life imprisonment. Its judgment relied heavily on the confessional statements made by some of the accused under Section 18 of MCOCA, declaring them 'voluntary and truthful' despite the defence arguing that they were the result of torture and emphasising that they were subsequently retracted. Since the death sentence had been imposed, the case was referred to the Bombay HC for confirmation. The persons sentenced to life imprisonment also filed appeals, and these cases were heard together by a Division Bench. In a 671-page judgment, the HC examined every aspect of the prosecution's case, finding its narrative to be riddled with inconsistencies and lacking in conclusive proof. Among other things, the court found that several key eyewitness testimonies were wholly unreliable, with some witnesses coming forward after more than 100 days of silence. The ability of witnesses to identify the accused in court after more than four years was doubted. Crucially, the HC declared that the invocation of the stringent MCOCA was improper. When prior approval for invoking that Act was granted, information about the existence of the legal ingredients and conditions was clearly not furnished before the approving authority. Also, the 'prior' approval was found to be without application of mind. Another key ingredient for the invocation of MCOCA is that there must be a 'continuing unlawful activity', as defined in that Act, and that condition was not fulfilled. The HC also held that the confessions relied on by the prosecution were inadmissible due to evidence of brutal torture, lack of voluntariness, and procedural violations under MCOCA, including defective 'prior' approvals and identical statements. It noted medical evidence of injuries, retractions made immediately upon judicial custody, and the absence of critical details like the bombs' chemistry, all of which undermined the credibility of the alleged confessions. The court also noted the failure of police to prove voluntariness through oral evidence and the striking fact that the accused had remained silent for months in custody. They allegedly confessed only after MCOCA was invoked: A pattern that undermined the genuineness of the statements. The HC ultimately acquitted all 12 of the accused, concluding that the prosecution 'utterly failed to establish the offence beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused on each count'. The acquittal alerts us to the disturbing fact that the actual masterminds of the 2006 Mumbai train blasts have remained scot-free for nearly two decades. It is particularly pertinent to pay heed to a preliminary paragraph in the HC's judgment, where it emphasises the dangers of 'creating a false appearance of having solved a case by presenting that the accused have been brought to justice'. This, the HC rightly notes, 'undermines public trust and falsely reassures society, while in reality, the true threat remains at large'. The stay order by the SC is jarring for several reasons. The first is the summary manner in which the Court, 'taking note of the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General on the question of law', said it was 'inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent in any other pending proceedings'. Based on this, the SC ordered 'there shall be a stay on the operation of the impugned judgment' to that extent. For the Court to 'hold' something, normally, both sides would be heard, and the Court would provide a reason. Instead, the stay order appears to be solely based on the assertion of the Solicitor General. There is no mention of any specific questions of law, or even the potential impact of the judgment as precedent. The SC order does not even refer to the tests it typically applies while determining whether a stay is to be granted. It makes no mention of whether the state has made out a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience lies on its side, or how irreparable damage might be caused if the HC judgment is not stayed. Second, the stay order appears to undermine the HC's authority. The HC is not only a constitutional court, but also the mandatory reference court for death sentences, and the first appellate court meant to decide authoritatively on both facts and law. To summarily strip a judgment from such a body of its precedential value is unfair and demoralising. Third, and perhaps most important, is the signal the order sends out. This must be viewed in a broader context concerning cases involving terror offences, where there are often myriad pressures on the judiciary to secure a conviction to placate public outcry. In these cases, it takes a certain degree of judicial courage and integrity to focus on the particular questions of fact and law that arise in a case without being swayed by general public discourse. The HC's judgment was a bold affirmation of the principle that the judicial task is to dispassionately weigh evidence and uphold the law, however horrifying the crime. The judgment acknowledged the tragedy of the lives lost and harm caused, but refused to sacrifice the lives of innocent persons for the sake of a 'false appearance' of closure. Viewed in this broader context, the stay order sends a disconcerting message that even the most thorough and well-reasoned acquittals in these kinds of sensitive cases may be suspended on the basis of assertions by the state. The writer is a senior advocate, Supreme Court of India
Deccan Herald
13 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
What the 7/11 verdict tells us about our probes
Seven serial blasts ripped through Mumbai's suburban train network between 6.23 and 6.29 pm on July 11, 2006, killing 187 people and injuring 824. The ghastly crime against a particularly soft target, the local trains that ferry more than six million ordinary people a day in India's financial centre along the city's north-south corridor, shook the city and the nation. But a shocker of a different kind came last week, 19 years on, when a division bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that the case in effect remains unsolved and that the 'true threat remains at large'. The High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the case, including five who had been awarded the death penalty by the trial court, and recorded strong findings against the police for grossly misinvestigating the Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak began the 667-page judgement with the following words: 'Punishing the actual perpetrator of a crime is a concrete and essential step toward curbing criminal activities, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring the safety and security of citizens. But creating a false appearance of having solved a case by presenting that the accused have been brought to justice gives a misleading sense of resolution. This deceptive closure undermines public trust and falsely reassures society while, in reality, the true threat remains at large.'.7/11 blasts | After acquittal, 9 walk out jails, two still in prison amid pending effect, the Justices recorded that the culprits still roam free. We do not know who committed the crime. Some innocents were tortured and presented as the killers, but the elaborate story did not stand scrutiny. The court's scathing remarks not only brought shame and ignominy for the investigating agencies but also raised important questions that go beyond the quality of investigations, or the capacity of the agencies and their leadership to get to the bottom of such a well-coordinated and heinous crime. These remarks raised questions on the integrity of the entire investigating network that used the heavy hand of the law and pressed charges that were quite convincingly dismissed. While it is known that police systems are anything but perfect, that the niceties of the law and due process do get stretched, particularly in sensitive investigations, wholesale violations of the kind recorded by the High Court mark this case as a new low for the State and its quite obvious response of the State has been to move the Supreme Court in appeal, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asking for a stay of the judgement to the extent that it would not serve as precedent before trial courts currently hearing other cases prosecuted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. In their order, Justices M M Sundresh and N K Singh of the Supreme Court noted that 'there is no question of imprisoning' those already released after the acquittals. However, the judges said they were inclined to hold that the impugned judgement shall not be treated as a precedent and there shall be a stay on the operation of the be some time before the Supreme Court weighs in on the matter. Meanwhile, there is ample material in the High Court judgement to act as an eye-opener; it must trigger some internal soul-searching among the top brass of the administrative machinery and lead to some review of operations if there is to be any public confidence that terrorists will be brought to book. The case shows that outdated modes of investigation, including the use of torture, do not help solve crime but are used to push a preferred line of inquiry because the real culprits are out of reach..'Barbaric and inhuman'.The court's words speak out loud. At one place, the Justices note: This detailed account of torture (narrated in the previous para of the judgement) is difficult to read and imagine the barbarity of police, and if it is accepted as true and correct, it surely depicts inhuman, barbaric, and drastic methods applied by police to extort confession from accused 1. The nature of torture mentioned in the complaint will shock the conscience of anyone. The narration shows that the incidents stated are not vague and general but with details, namely the dates, place, the names of the officers, and the nature of torture.'.This account of 'barbaric and inhuman torture', the court ruled, was corroborated by medical evidence. In other places, the court found that confessional statements did not reveal crucial aspects of the crime like: (1) in what containers the bombs were packed, (2) how were the bombs detonated, (3) what was the device used to trigger the bombs, (4) how the device got accurately activated, and most importantly, (5) who planted the bombs that exploded at Mahim and Bandra larger picture is of a failing administration, rapidly sliding down a very slippery slope in the absence of robust internal and external scrutiny, blind support in the name of fighting terrorism while the real terrorists go scot-free, and a refusal to accept and correct mistakes. Worse, this is a secular fall. We cannot blame a particular party or government – all are a party to this collapse. Since the blasts, Maharashtra has had a total of 10 governments under various parties and dispensations, including two bouts of central the end, shortcuts don't work. They don't serve the cause of justice. They are a disservice to the nation. This message must be sent down to the police force, right from the very top. It must be accompanied by strong action against those who violate due process. Just as some sections have raised a voice against the acquittals, there has to be a voice against those who messed up the investigation. We must work to find the real culprits, and we must punish all those who violated norms and have brought us to this pass..(The writer is a journalist and faculty member at SPJIMR; Syndicate: The Billion Press)
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Encounter specialist Daya Nayak promoted to ACP rank, just a day before retirement
Mumbai Police officer Daya Nayak , famously known as an "encounter specialist," was promoted to the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) just one day before his retirement. Alongside Nayak, three other police inspectors—Jeevan Kharat, Deepak Dalvi, and Pandurang Pawar from Jalgaon—were also elevated to the ACP rank. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Project Management healthcare Finance Public Policy Artificial Intelligence Technology Product Management Management Degree Cybersecurity Data Analytics MCA Operations Management Leadership CXO PGDM Digital Marketing Design Thinking Data Science Healthcare others Data Science MBA Others Skills you'll gain: Portfolio Management Project Planning & Risk Analysis Strategic Project/Portfolio Selection Adaptive & Agile Project Management Duration: 6 Months IIT Delhi Certificate Programme in Project Management Starts on May 30, 2024 Get Details Skills you'll gain: Project Planning & Governance Agile Software Development Practices Project Management Tools & Software Techniques Scrum Framework Duration: 12 Weeks Indian School of Business Certificate Programme in IT Project Management Starts on Jun 20, 2024 Get Details All about Daya Nayak Born in Udupi, Karnataka, into a Konkani-speaking family, Daya Nayak's rise has been anything but ordinary. The youngest child of Badda and Radha Nayak, he started his working life at a tea stall before moving to Mumbai in 1979 to support his family. While living in a hotel portico where he worked, he completed his Class 12 from a municipal school in Goregaon and later graduated from CES College, Andheri. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The 3 Trends Reshaping Wealth in Europe Reshaping Wealth | Search Ads Learn More Undo Nayak joined the police force in 1996 and quickly gained fame for his role in Mumbai's fight against organized crime. In a city plagued by underworld violence during the 1990s, he was part of the elite "encounter squad" and was credited with neutralizing over 80 gangsters, including notorious names such as Vinod Matkar, Rafik Dabba, Sadik Kalia, and three Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives. His first major breakthrough came in December 1996, when he shot dead two gangsters from the Chhota Rajan gang in Juhu after they opened fire on him. The daring encounter established him as a fearless officer in the police ranks. Live Events Nayak's career, however, was not without turbulence. In 2004, the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court ordered the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to investigate him over allegations of disproportionate assets. The probe—triggered after he set up a school in Karnataka under his mother's name—led to raids in Mumbai and Bangalore and claims that he owned two luxury bus fleets under the name Vishal Travels. Though arrested during the probe, Nayak was eventually cleared due to lack of sufficient evidence. After a prolonged suspension lasting six years, he was reinstated in 2012 and returned to active duty. Most recently posted with the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Nayak contributed to the high-profile case involving gelatin sticks found near industrialist Mukesh Ambani's residence. His team played a role in investigating the linked murder of Mansukh Hiran.
United News of India
a day ago
- Politics
- United News of India
Special Court set to rule on 2008 Malegaon Bombing Thursday
Mumbai, July 29 (UNI) Nearly 17 years after a fatal explosion tore through the communally sensitive town of Malegaon, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court will finally deliver its verdict this Thursday, July 31. The 2008 blast, occurring on September 29 during the holy month of Ramzan and coinciding with the Navratri festival eve, claimed six lives and left 100 others injured in the Muslim-majority town in Maharashtra's Nashik district. The protracted legal journey reaches a pivotal moment after the court reserved its orders on April 19. While initially directing the seven accused to appear on May 8 for the judgement, the pronouncement was subsequently rescheduled for July 31. The complex investigation saw initial handling by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), led by the late Special Inspector General Hemant Karkare, who was later killed during the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. The ATS filed its chargesheet in 2009. However, the case was in 2011 transferred to the NIA, which submitted a supplementary chargesheet in 2016. Although the NIA largely concurred with the ATS's findings, it differed on specific aspects, notably recommending the dropping of stringent charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), a recommendation the court accepted. The trial, conducted by the special court in Mumbai, proceeded under charges framed on October 30, 2018. The seven accused face prosecution under critical sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including Sections 16 (committing a terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit a terrorist act), alongside various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): 120(b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 153(a) (promoting enmity between different religious groups). The accused standing trial are former BJP Member of Parliament Pragya Singh Thakur, retired Military Intelligence official Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi. The prosecution presented a total of 323 witnesses during the lengthy trial. However, the proceedings were marked by the significant challenge of 34 witnesses turning hostile. The hearing of evidence concluded in September 2023, paving the way for the long-awaited verdict scheduled for this week. UNI AAA SSP
India Today
a day ago
- Politics
- India Today
Evidence shows Walmik Karad is member of crime syndicate: Maharashtra court
A special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in Beed has rejected a discharge application filed by Walmik Baburao Karad, the prime accused in a case involving extortion and murder liked to a company called Avaada Energy Private Limited in Kaij district of Beed, court observed that there is prima facie evidence to show that the accused is a member of a crime a close aide of former Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) minister Dhananjay Munde, was booked under MCOCA for the murder of a village head, Santosh Deshmukh. Karad had sought his discharge under Section 250 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contending that he was falsely implicated due to a political vendetta. He denied playing any role in a crime syndicate and challenged the legality of the prior approval and sanction under public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, who is now a Rajya Sabha member, submitted that the sanction for MCOCA was taken as per judge V.H. Patwadkar noted that Karad and his co-accused had allegedly demanded rupees 2 crore from Avaada Energy and had threatened to halt their operations in the area if their demands were not Deshmukh tried to intervene in the matter, he was allegedly abducted and killed on December 9, 2024. Witness statements and electronic evidence reportedly linked Karad to the court observed that 20 cases were registered against Karad, and 7 of those were within the past decade. The judge said, "This prima facie shows that Karad is involved in continuing unlawful activities."Indicating a pattern of continuing unlawful activity, the court further held that there was prima facie material, including scientific, digital, and forensic evidence, to proceed with charges under numerous sections of the law."Validity of prior permission or sanction shall not be doubted at this juncture. Thus, the statements of witnesses, material, technical, digital, scientific and forensic evidence prima facie reveal that the offence was committed by Karad and co-accused persons as a result of non-fulfillment of the demand of the ransom by the company, obstruction by Deshmukh, followed by conspiracy, abduction and elimination of deceased," the judge also ruled that the scope for discharge at this stage was limited and that sufficient grounds existed to proceed with the trial, thereby rejecting Karad's plea while adding, "The applicant appears to have been a member of the organised crime syndicate and was involved in continuing unlawful activities."- EndsTrending Reel IN THIS STORY#Maharashtra
