New Delhi, March 17 A Delhi court has rejected the bail application of an accused in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), observing that they did not meet the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 21(4)(b) and (5) of the Act.
These conditions require the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit another offense while on bail.
Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused, Riyazuddin, as he found it to be "without merit".
"The co-accused have also disclosed the role of the accused in their confessional statement, which is admissible under MCOCA. At this stage, there is no reason not to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offenses against which he is being charged in the present FIR," the court said in its order dated March 14.
The accused's lawyer alleged that he was falsely implicated in the present case because he had filed a complaint against three corrupt police officials to the Lieutenant Governor. He wrote against Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Yogender and constable Shokendra in 2022, and later against Sub-Inspector (SI) Sahansar Pal in 2025.
He also approached the Delhi High Court seeking the registration of an FIR against them, but the case was disposed of in 2025.
According to the defence, the accused drove road transport vehicle (RTV) buses for a living, and on February 1, 2022, he was involved in a road collision accident with a three-seater auto rickshaw (TSR). ASI Yogender and Constable Shokendra approached him shortly thereafter, alleging that they had received a Police Control Room (PCR) call regarding the accident, and warned him of being arrested and his RTV being impounded.
ASI Yogender demanded a bribe of Rs 5,000, which was later renegotiated to Rs 2,000. The two police officials later demanded Rs 9,000 as "protection money" to avoid the impounding of the RTV.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, arguing that there was no provision for anticipatory bail under the MCOCA. They also argued that the accused was part of an organised crime syndicate run by the alleged kingpin, Raj Kumar, who had already been arrested.
The organised crime syndicate was found to be involved in seven criminal cases, out of which the court had already taken cognizance of four cases in the last 10 years. The accused had been arrested for extortion in two of these cases.
Raj Kumar also stated the role of the accused in his confessional statement, alleging that the accused would send his men to record secret videos of police officials, which could later be used for extortion and blackmail.
The prosecution argued that the complaints filed against the three police officials were merely an "afterthought" after ASI Yogender was already named in a separate FIR.
Agreeing with the prosecution, the court noted that there was sufficient evidence to imply the accused's guilt, thus not meeting the twin conditions for granting bail under the MCOCA.