New Delhi, Mar 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 they did not meet the stringent twin conditions of bail under Section 21(4)(b) and (5) the Act.
The conditions require the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail.
Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by accused Riyazuddin as he found it to be "without merit".
"Co-accused in their confessional statement have also disclosed the role of the accused which is admissible under MCOCA. At this stage, there is no ground for not believing that the accused is not guilty of offences as invoked against him in the present FIR," said the court in its order dated March 14.
The counsel for the accused alleged that he was falsely implicated in the present case as he had filed a complaint to the Lieutenant Governor against three corrupt police officials. 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 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 met with a road collision accident with a three-seater auto rickshaw (TSR). ASI Yogender and Constable Shokendra approached him shortly thereafter alleging 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 Rs 5,000 as a bribe, which was then renegotiated to Rs 2,000. The two police officials later demanded Rs 9,000 as "protection money" to avoid the RTV from being impounded.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, saying there was no provision for anticipatory bail under the MCOCA. He 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 cognisance 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, as he alleged the accused would send his boys to record secret videos of police officials which could be later 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 enough material on record that implied the accused's guilt, thus not meeting the twin conditions of granting bail under the MCOCA.
