A. S. Oka, J. - (1.) Heard Advocate for the Applicant and the learned A. P. P. for State. The applicant is an accused in an offence registered under Section s 3 (1), (i), (ii) as well as Section 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act,1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1999 ).
(2.) The main submission made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that when the Court considers the question of granting temporary bail in extraordinary circumstances, stringent requirements of Sub-Section 4 of section21 of the said Act of 1999 will not apply. His submission is that the decision of the learned Single Judge reported in (Anil Umrao Gote Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 AllMR(Cri) 350) needs reconsideration. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that even in a case where provisions of the said Act of 1999 are applicable, the Court retains power of granting temporary bail even in a case where requirements of sub Section 4 of Section21 are not satisfied. He placed reliance on order passed by the Apex Court dated-4th November, 2004 in the case of Ranjeetsing B. Sharma in SLP (Cri.) 3897 of 2004. He has also invited my attention to a decision of the Apex Court reported in (Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2005 AllMR(Cri) 1538). He submitted that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court, there is no restriction on power of the Court to grant a temporary bail even in a case where the provisions of the said Act of 1999 have been applied. He has also invited my attention to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and submitted that in the case of the Applicant who was required to apply for temporary bail on the ground of demise of his brother, stringent provisions of Sub Section 4 of Section21 cannot be applied. The learned A. P. P. opposed the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant and submitted that law on this point is very clear which needs no reconsideration.
(3.) Before I deal with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant, it will be necessary to refer to the order dated-4th August, 2005 passed by this Court. Under the said order, the Applicant was permitted to attend to obsequies under a police escort. In view of the said order, now the requirement of releasing the Applicant on temporary bail does not subsist. However, I have dealt with the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Applicant. It is necessary to make a reference to a decision of the learned Single Judge in case of Anil Gote, 2005 AllMR(Cri) 350. After considering the various decisions of the Apex Court, including the decision reported in (Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and others Vs. State of Gujrat,1998 AIR(SC) 922) the learned Single Judge held that the Court is having jurisdiction to release the accused on bail only on fulfilment of condition under Section 21 (4) of the said Act of 1999.;