Delhi High Court Denies Bail in Organised Crime Case | ‘Cognisance’ of FIRs Against Gang Member Enough to Invoke MCOCA, Conviction Not Required
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on September 18, 2025, dismissed a bail plea filed under Section 439 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by an accused charged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. Allegations involved membership of a crime syndicate implicated in murders, extortion, and gang rivalries in Delhi and the NCR. The Court clarified that MCOCA can be invoked once a Magistrate takes cognizance of two or more FIRs against a person as part of a gang, irrespective of conviction.
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No.77/2018 registered under Sections 3/4 MCOCA at P.S. Special Cell, Delhi. The case arose following allegations that the applicant was a key member of the organised crime syndicate led by the late gangster Sunil @ Tillu. The prosecution alleged the syndicate was involved in murders, extortion, and gang rivalries in Delhi-NCR.
The applicant argued he was a family man in judicial custody since 24 August 2018, totalling more than six and a half years. He contended he was falsely implicated and had already secured bail in FIR No.83/2018 under Sections 302/307/120B IPC. He stated his compliance with interim bail orders earlier granted on medical grounds and urged consideration of his father’s deteriorating health condition requiring bypass surgery at AIIMS. The defence cited precedents including Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) to argue that denial of bail due to delay infringes Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to speedy trial.
The prosecution opposed bail, submitting that the applicant was a central figure in the Tillu gang, actively involved in murders, extortions, and public shootouts. The State’s status report detailed his involvement in multiple FIRs, including FIR No.193/2015 (Alipur – acquitted), FIR No.466/2015 (Murthal – convicted for life), FIR No.41/2016 (K.N. Katju Marg – pending trial), and FIR No.83/2018 (Maurya Enclave – pending trial). It was further submitted that public witnesses had deposed to receiving threats from the applicant and that gang activities continued from inside jail premises. The prosecution argued granting bail would risk witness intimidation and further criminal acts.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna recorded that MCOCA was enacted to curb gang crime and was extended to Delhi in 2002 due to increasing organised criminal activity. The Court stated: “This Act was extended to National Capital Territory of Delhi vide Notification dated 02.04.2002, in view of the rampant increase in hardcore criminal activities and gang rivalry in and around Delhi.”
Referring to Section 21(4) of MCOCA, the Court noted the twin conditions for bail: (a) opportunity for the Public Prosecutor to oppose bail, and (b) satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court cited Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 which clarified that: “The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act.” Instead, the provision required balancing probabilities.
The Court observed that the applicant’s criminal antecedents showed multiple FIRs filed in the past decade where cognizance had been taken. “All these facts show that the Applicant has been indulging in Organised crime as part of organized criminal syndicate,” the judgment stated. The Court further remarked: “Some of the cases may have ended in acquittal which is of little consequence for invoking MCOCA… the requirement under MCOCA is of taking cognizance and does not talk about the conviction/ acquittal.”
On the question of delay in trial, the Court referred to Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, Mohd. Muslim v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 352), and Siddhant v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3798). It observed: “Factors such as long incarceration or delay in trial cannot be taken as sole factors for the grant of bail without considering the gravity of the offence or the role played by the accused in the said case.” The Court stressed that while the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is vital, it must be balanced against societal interest when dealing with organised crime.
The Court noted that charges had already been framed on 24 August 2024 and about ten prosecution witnesses had been examined. “It cannot be said to be a case where there is no meaningful progress in the trial,” the judgment recorded.
The Bench concluded: “Additionally, it cannot be overlooked that if the Applicant is released on Bail, the possibility of his committing the crime again while on Bail, cannot be overlooked especially considering that he is allegedly a part of notorious gang headed by Sunil @ Tillu.”
Justice Krishna stated: “From the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident on the face of it, there is sufficient material to show the complicity of the Applicant in the serious organized crimes being a member of the Organised Crime Syndicate. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the twin test as laid down under Section 21(4) MCOCA for the grant of Bail.”
“In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this is one case where even though the Applicant is in Judicial Custody since 24.08.2020, the circumstance as discussed above, do not justify grant of Bail.” Accordingly, it ordered: “The Bail Application is accordingly, dismissed. Pending Applications are disposed of accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Murari Tiwari, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Sarthak Singh and Ms. Indira Murthy, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl.) for the State with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates with SI Devendra Rawat, Cell/NDR/New Delhi.
Case Title: Umesh @ Kala v. State
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8285
Case Number: BAIL APPL. 1407/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
