The judgment examines the applicability of anticipatory bail provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC Act) in comparison with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SCST Act). The court deliberates on the validity of prior approval for invoking the MCOC Act, the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 21(3) of the MCOC Act, and the binding nature of previous judgments like Shabhana Shaikh. The court concludes that the legislative intent behind the MCOC Act is to address serious organized crime, which justifies stricter provisions and the exclusion of anticipatory bail. The court dismisses the petitioner’s request for anticipatory bail and clarifies that the judgment in Shabhana Shaikh is not a binding precedent.

1. Prior Approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOC Act

   • Explanation: Ensures MCOC Act provisions are applied with due consideration.
   • Legal Interpretation: Focus on organized crime syndicate's activities.

2. Judicial Precedents on 'Continuing Unlawful Activity'

   • Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra: Syndicate activities, not individual actions.
   • Division Bench's Conclusion: Supports MCOC Act's objective.

3. Case Specifics and Evidence

   • Crime Details: Petitioner allegedly assisted accused by purchasing a car.
   • Evidence: Witness statements, call records, bogus marriage card.

4. Definition of 'Abet' under MCOC Act

   • Section 2(i)(a): Includes assistance to organized crime syndicate.
   • Relevant Case Law: Sachin Bansilal Ghaiwal V/s. State of Maharashtra.

5. Validity of Approval and Sanction

   • Anil S. Nanduskar Vs. State of Maharashtra: Approval must show material consideration.
   • Investigation Findings: Justify applying MCOC provisions.

6. Grant of Bail under Article 226

   • Supreme Court Rulings: Conditions for bail under Article 226 (Kartar Singh, Hema Mishra).
   • Extreme Circumstances: Bail in rare, exceptional cases.

7. Precedents on Pre-Arrest Bail

   • Case Law: Cautious exercise of power (Arnab M. Goswami, Muraleedharan).
   • Current Petition: Evaluates circumstances for pre-arrest bail.

8. Conclusion

   • Legal Position: No merit in challenging prior approval under MCOC Act.
   • Bail Consideration: Pre-arrest bail in exceptional circumstances only.

Judgment on MCOC Act vs. SCST Act:

• Reliance on Prathvi Raj Chauhan Decision: Context-specific to SCST Act.
• Sections of the Acts: Exclusion of anticipatory bail (TADA, MCOC Acts).
• Interpretation of Penal Statutes: Reflect legislative intent.
• Purpose and Intent of the MCOC Act: Address organized crime.
• Distinction Between MCOC Act and SCST Act: Different objectives and applications.
• Case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan: Pre-arrest bail in exceptional SCST Act cases.
• Binding Precedent and the Shabhana Shaikh Case: Non-binding nature clarified.
• Judgment Conclusion: Dismisses petition, grants interim relief for appeal.
• Appreciation and Post-Judgment Submission: Court appreciates assistance, grants interim relief for Supreme Court appeal.