According to Additional Public Prosecutor P A Pol, these conditions will make it nearly impossible for a convicted accused for getting bail as the first option is already null since the accused is guilty of the offence.

The two conditions were cited on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment in a Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case.

Based on this, Justice A P Deshpande observed that “the conditions precedent for grant of bail under Section 37 of NDPS Act is similar to the conditions laid down by Section 21 (4) under MCOCA”.

“What is true of the menace of dangerous drugs is equally true of the menace of organised crime,” the judgment states.

In Rubina’s case, she had cited an earlier judgment of a single bench of the Bombay High Court and contended that the judge had granted bail in a similar case.

Rubina’s counsel had argued that the powers of the court to grant bail contained in section 439 of the CrPC are in no way curtailed by the provisions of Section 21 (4) of MCOCA.

The current judgment, however, observes that the single judge in the earlier case had not considered the effect of Section 21 (4) of MCOCA vis-a-vis Section 439 of the CrPC.

The court had accepted Pol's argument that the power of court to grant bail under CrPC are subject to the provisions of Section 21 (4) of MCOCA. He argued that unless and until the court is satisfied that the conditions are met with, only then bail can be granted as bail under CrPC are subject to the provisions of Section 21 (4) of MCOCA.

Pol argued that the limitations on granting bail specified under Section 21 (4) are in addition to the limitation under the CrPC.

“With this judgment it will be nearly impossible to secure bail for accused convicted under MCOCA,” Pol told Newsline.