Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IA No. 10/26
SC No. 04/26
FIR no. 186/25
State Vs. Kusum and ors
PS: Sultanpuri
07.10.2026
Present: Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ld. SPP along with Ld.
Counsels Sh. Himanshu, Sh. Krishana Mohan Chandel and Ms.
Nivedita Sood for the State.
Ld. Counsels Sh. Rahul Sharma, Sh. Kundan Kumar,
Sh. Gyan Ranjan and Sh. Lakshya Chopra for accused/applicant
Hariom.
Insp. Ritesh along with SI Gagandeep Dangi are
present on behalf of IO along with reply to the bail application.
Copy supplied.
Arguments on the regular bail application heard at
length.
Applicant’s submissions
1. It is the applicant’s case that though he was arrested
by the police in the present FIR, however, he is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in this case due malafide intentions,
extraneous considerations.
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 1/24
-- 1 of 24 --
1.1 It is his case that though Section 2 of Maharashtra
Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short MCOCA)
requires that the offences must have been committed by a person
either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime
syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more
than one charge sheet has been filed before a competent court &
the court has taken cognizance thereof, however, in the present
case there is no such chargesheet which such allegations.
1.2 It is his case that the chargesheet sans the allegation
of crime being committed by a person singly or jointly as a
member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of the
syndicate and therefore it cannot be looked into by the competent
authority or the designated court nor it permits invocation of
MCOCA.
1.3 It is his case that there is no chargesheet mentioning
the crime committed by any person singly or jointly as a member
of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate and
merely filing list of involvement of cases does not fulfill the
requirement of Section 2 (1) (d) of MCOCA.
1.4 It is his case that the only alleged evidence against
him is that he transferred a sum of Rs. 20 lacs to his sister
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 2/24
-- 2 of 24 --
Kusum’s account, received a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in his account and
there is no other transaction or evidence against him.
1.5 It is his case that most substantial ground for bail to
him is parity with co-accused Anuradha @ Chiku and Deepa who
have already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court
and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide orders dated
24.07.2026 and 29.09.2026.
1.6 It is his case that the role attributed to him is similar
to/lesser than the role attributed to the said co-accused persons
and he does not stand on a different or adverse footing which
warrants his continued incarceration.
1.7 It is his case that if enlarged on bail he undertakes to
abide by all the terms & conditions as may be imposed upon him.
State’s response
2. It is the prosecution case that on 10.03.2025 acting
on secret information regarding an organized drug syndicate
being run by one Kusum & Amit (son of Kusum) from premises
E-4/13, Sultanpuri, Delhi, a raid was conducted during which
385.53 grams (gross weight) of heroin in sachets and 47.09
grams of Tramadol were recovered. Accordingly, FIR No.
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 3/24
-- 3 of 24 --
186/2025 dated 11.03.2025 under Sections 21(c)/22(b)/29 NDPS
Act & 111 BNS was registered at PS Sultanpuri.
2.1 It is further it's case that during police custody
remand of co-accused Amit, it was disclosed that he, alongwith
his mother Kusum (kingpin) and sisters Anuradha @ Chiku &
applicant/Deepa, were running a drug syndicate and they all
were beneficiaries of proceeds of crime.
2.2 It is further it's case that pursuant to the disclosure,
recoveries were effected from multiple premises linked to co-
accused Kusum.
2.3 It is it's case that investigation revealed substantial
unexplained bank transactions in accounts of the co-accused
persons, amounting to several crores, without any lawful source,
indicating proceeds of organized crime.
2.4 It is further its case that the applicant who is the
brother of the kingpin of the syndicate Ms. Kusum was arrested
in the present matter on 26.10.2025 and during his PC remand
he identified one agricultural land (6.5 bigha) at village Godha,
Tehsil Kol, District Aligarh, UP and further disclosed that the
said property was purchased by him in his name & others, on the
directions of Kusum, for a sum of Rs. 90 lacs which was
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 4/24
-- 4 of 24 --
amassed by selling smack i.e. entirely funded by Kusum and
other co-accused persons.
2.5 It is further its case that the applicant voluntarily
confessed u/s 18 of MCOCA that over the period of time Kusum
invested her drug money in real estate & bought multiple
properties whose payments were made partly in cash and partly
through bank deposits and that over the years he had received &
deposited several lacs of rupees from Kusum which was
proceeds of crime for making property investments. Further, he
used part of the ill-gotten money to purchase some properties in
his own name and that cash amount of more than Rs. 1 crore
was given to him by Kusum and other co-accused persons which
was deposited by him in his account at PNB, Yes Bank and
Canara Bank which transactions stand corroborated from his
bank accounts and also a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was deposited in the
bank account of applicant by a protected witness N.
2.6 It is its case that the above deposits do not sync
with his financial income or his IT returns. Further, in August
2024, Kusum also sent Rs. 20 lacs in cash through other accused
persons for a property deal at Azadpur Mandi, Delhi and the
applicant deposited this cash in his firm’s account (M/s Raghav
Enterprises) on 29.08.2024 and transferred it the very next day
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 5/24
-- 5 of 24 --
to Kusum’s bank account after which, the said property at
Azadpur Mandi was purchased, whose documents are on record.
2.7 It is its case that the applicant is/was actively
involved in handling, routing & laundering of the proceeds of
crime generated from large scale smack trafficking and allowed
his bank account as well as that of his sons to be used for
depositing and transferring illicit cash generated from narcotics
trade. Thus his role is that of a financial conduit, asset holder,
conspirator, facilitator and a beneficiary of the activities of
crime syndicate making him an integral member of the
syndicate.
2.8 It is its case that as far as parity is concerned, co-
accused Anuradha @ Chiku and Deepa were granted bail
considering the peculiar facts & circumstances as existing qua
those accused persons and it is settled law that parity is not an
automatic rule of bail.
Findings
3. I have carefully considered the rival contentions
raised at bar, examined the legal provisions and have perused the
record.
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 6/24
-- 6 of 24 --
3.1 In nutshell the prosecution case is that an organised
crime syndicate was being run by one Kusum (Kingpin)
alongwith the co-accused persons/associate and the said
syndicate was running a drug syndicate facilitating the trafficking
& concealing of narcotic substances through which it generated
substantial proceeds of crime and with the help of the ill-gotten
money, numerous properties & vehicles were purchased by it. As
far as the applicant is concerned, it is the prosecution case that
not only he is the brother of kingpin Kusum but he played the
key role of handling, laundering, financial conduit of the
proceeds of crime generated by the said crime syndicate.
3.2 Since the provisions of MCOCA have been invoked
in the present case it would be expedient to re-apprise as to why
the said Act was enacted. MCOCA was initially enacted for the
State of Maharashtra for combating the menace of organized
crime which posed a serious threat to civil society in Mumbai.
The government was of the opinion that the existing legal regime
was inadequate to deal with the problem and hence, the necessity
for a special law to curb the menace of organized crime led to
enactment of MCOCA for the State of Maharashtra in the year
1999. Subsequently the Act was extended to the National Capital
Territory of Delhi w.e.f. 02.01.2002 by GSR-6 (E) in exercise of
powers conferred by Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws)
Act, 1950 by the Central Government with certain modifications.
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 7/24
-- 7 of 24 --
MCOCA was enacted to make special provisions for prevention
& control of and for coping with, criminal activity by an
organized crime syndicate or gang and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. The enactment has a special
purpose i.e. to tackle the menace of serious, heinous offences
committed in an organized manner. The statement of Objects and
Reasons of MCOCA leaves no doubt that offences contemplated
under the said Act are serious offences with the potential of
prejudicing the security of the nation.
3.3 Statutory provisions of the MCOCA which are
germane to the present controversy are set out below for ease of
reference.
Section 2
“(2) Definitions
(1) ……….(d)"continuing unlawful activity" means an
activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which
is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of
three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a
member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of
such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-
sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the
preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken
cognizance of such offence;…………..
(e)"organised crime" means any continuing unlawful
activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a
member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of
such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or
intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the
objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue
economic or other advantage for himself or any other person
or promoting insurgency;
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 8/24
-- 8 of 24 --
(f)"organized crime syndicate" means a group of two or
more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a
syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organized crime;
Section 3
3. Punishment for organised crime
(1)Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall,
(i)if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall
also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees
one lac;
(ii)in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than five years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a
fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(2)Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates,
abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an
organized crime or any act preparatory to organized crime,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall be not less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine,
subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(3)Whoever harbours or conceals or attempts to harbour or
conceal, any member of an organized crime syndicate shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine,
subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(4)Any person who is a member of an organized crime
syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than five years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a
fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs.
(5)Whoever holds any property derived or obtained from
commission of an organized crime or which has been
acquired through the organized crime syndicate funds shall
be punishable with a term which shall not be less than three
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and
shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of
rupees two lacs.
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 9/24
-- 9 of 24 --
Section 4
4. Punishment for possessing unaccountable wealth on
behalf of member of organised crime syndicate
If any person on behalf of a member of an organized crime
syndicate is, or, at any time has been, in possession of
movable or immovable property which he cannot
satisfactorily account for, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three
years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be
liable to fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac
and such property shall also be liable for attachment and
forfeiture, as provided by section 20.
Section 18
“18. Certain confessions made to police officer to be taken
into consideration
(1)Notwithstanding anything in the Code or in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), but subject to the
provisions of this section, a confession made by a person
before a police officer not below the rank of the Deputy
Commissioner of Police and recorded by such police
officer either in writing or on any mechanical devices like
cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from which sounds or
images can be reproduced, shall be admissible in the trial
of such person or co-accused, abettor or
conspirator;Provided that, the co-accused, abettor or
conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together
with the accused.
(2)The confession shall be recorded in a free atmosphere in
the same language in which the person is examined and as
narrated by him.
(3)The police officer shall, before recording any confession
under sub-section (1), explain to the person making it that
he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does
so, it may be used as evidence against him and such police
officer shall not record any such confession unless upon
questioning the person making it, he is satisfied that it is
being made voluntarily. The concerned police officer shall,
after recording such voluntary confession, certify in
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 10/24
-- 10 of 24 --
writing below the confession about his personal
satisfaction of the voluntary character of such confession,
putting the date and time of the same.
(4)Every confession recorded under sub-section (1) shall
be sent forthwith to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
the Chief Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the
area in which such confession has been recorded and such
Magistrate shall forward the recorded confession so
received to the Special Court which may take cognizance
of the offence.
(5)The person from whom a confession has been recorded
under sub-section (1) shall also be produced before the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial
Magistrate to whom the confession is required to be sent
under sub-section (4) alongwith the original statement of
confession, written or recorded on mechanical device
without unreasonable delay.
(6)The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial
Magistrate shall scrupulously record the statement, if any,
made by the accused so produced and get his signature and
in case of any complaint of torture, the person shall be
directed to be produced for medical examination before a
Medical Officer not lower in rank than of an Assistant
Civil Surgeon.
Section 23
“23. Cognizance of, and investigation into, an offence
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,--
(a)no information about the commission of an offence of
organised crime under this Act, shall be recorded by a
police officer without the prior approval of the police
officer not below the rank of the Additional Commissioner
of Police;
(b)no investigation of an offence under the provisions of
this Act shall be carried out by a police officer below the
rank of the Assistant Commissioner of Police.
(2)No Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence
under this Act without the previous sanction of the police
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 11/24
-- 11 of 24 --
officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of
Police.”
3.4 The MCOCA being a special legislation there is
modified provision in the same as incorporated in Section 21(4)
MCOCA which provides that the accused can only be released on
bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. The said provision is reproduced hereunder:-
"21. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code
……...
(3)Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to
any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of
having committed an offence punishable under this Act.
(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person
accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in
custody, be released on bail or on his own bond, unless--
(a)the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
oppose the application of such release; and
(b)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the
Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the
accused shall not be granted bail if it is noticed by the Court
that he was on bail in an offence under this Act, or under any
other Act, on the date of the offence in question.
(6)The limitations on granting of bail specified in sub-section
(4) are in addition to the limitations under the Code or any
other law for the time being in force on the granting of
bail…………...”
3.5 While considering bail under the MCOCA it has to
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 12/24
-- 12 of 24 --
be kept in mind that Section 21 (4) of the Act provides for a
stricter regime and the test under the said Act requires much
stronger degree of satisfaction. When there is an embargo put in
by a specific provision under a special enactment, just like
Section 21 (4) in the case at hand, then in the matter of grant of
bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, the
power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to satisfaction
of the conditions mentioned in such specific provision. The twin
conditions for grant of bail incorporated in Section 21(4) of
MCOCA requires the Court to be satisfied that there are
“reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty
of such offence”, which is “something more than prima facie
grounds”.
3.6 Though the twin conditions restrict the right of the
accused to grant of bail but it cannot be said that the said
conditions impose absolute restrain on grant of bail. The
conditions do not take away the discretion vested in the court,
which discretion ofcourse has to be exercised judiciously,
keeping in view the mandate of law, the nature of allegations and
upon appreciation of the entire material placed on record by the
rival parties in support of & against the grant of bail. In view of
the twin conditions the court has to arrive at a conclusion as to
whether the given facts & circumstances are sufficient in
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 13/24
-- 13 of 24 --
themselves to justify the satisfaction that the accused/applicant is
not guilty of the offence and thus entitled to bail.
3.7 In bail matters, the law is fairly well settled that at
the stage of bail the court has to see the broad probabilities of the
case and if the accused has been able to demonstrate that there
are broad probabilities that he is not guilty of the offence u/s 3/4
of the MCOCA then he has a right to be released on bail. At this
stage the court cannot go into a meticulous examination of the
facts nor it can examine the probative value of the witnesses,
their statements. What the court has to see is if there is a genuine
case against the accused, he has the requisite mensrea to commit
the offence and the court is not expected to weigh the evidence,
delve deep into the merits of the case or find out whether the
accused is indeed guilty or not, which stage will come only once
the trial is concluded. The court is not to determine, at the stage
of bail, the guilt of the accused but to only assess the matter on
broad probabilities. The court is not required to record a positive
finding that the accused has not committed an offence under
MCOCA but is to consider the question from the angle as to
whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mensrea or
not. The court has to maintain a delicate balance between
judgment of acquittal or conviction and an order granting bail
much before commencement of trial. The court is also required to
record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 14/24
-- 14 of 24 --
crime which is an offence under the MCOCA, after grant of bail.
In nutshell what the court has to see is whether there is a genuine
case against the accused or not.
3.8 It is also trite that while disposing off a bail
application detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned,
however, the court is expected to ascribe reasons for granting or
refusal to grant bail that demonstrates application of mind at least
in serious cases. Furthermore, the consideration which should
primarily weigh with the court at the time of considering the bail
application is the nature of accusations/offence but the other
factors like the antecedents of the applicant and whether there is
chance of his tampering with the witnesses, the evidence also to
be considered, kept in mind.
3.9 A careful reading of Section 2 would reveal that to
constitute "Organized Crime" there has to be any continuing
unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, as a member
of the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate,
by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or
coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining
pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other
advantage for himself or any other person or promoting
insurgency. Simply stated the activity committed was prohibited
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 15/24
-- 15 of 24 --
by law in force at that time and was a cognizable offence having
punishment of three years or more.
3.10 To constitute "continuing unlawful activity" within
the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the following
ingredients are essential:-
(1) the activity must be prohibited by law;
(2) it must be a cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment of three years or more;
(3) it must be undertaken singly or jointly;
(4) it must be undertaken as a member of an
organized crime syndicate or on behalf of
such syndicate;
(5) in respect of which more than one charge sheet is
filed before a competent court.
3.11 Having refreshed MCOCA and the general
principles guiding the bail application, let us now discuss the
grounds agitated by the applicant for seeking bail.
3.12 The foremost ground raised in the bail application is
that there is no chargesheet mentioning the crime committed by a
person singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime
syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate and only a list of
involvement of cases has been filed. As far as the said contention
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 16/24
-- 16 of 24 --
is concerned, it is well settled law that in order to satisfy the
ingredients of Sections 2(1)(d) of MCOCA, it is not necessary
that the chargesheet should be against an individual, but a charge
sheet against the syndicate as a whole, would also suffice as the
requirement of law is not “individual-centric” but is rather
“syndicate-centric”. It has been held in
Naresh Balyan Vs. State
of NCT of Delhi CRL.A. 1676/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL)
1302/2025 dated 03.08.2026 as “
47. The abovesaid crucial pre-
requisite of there being more than one chargesheet in the
preceding ten years is not to be taken in context of an individual
only. It has to relate to the activity of the concerned organised
crime syndicate. Thus, the role of any such individual, who has
been sent up to face trial, has to be examined from a broader and
wider angle. The determining and governing aspect would be
whether activity is „as a loner with no nexus to syndicate or „as	‟
member or on behalf of such syndicate . Therefore, the	‟
requirement of the law of there being more than one previous
chargesheet cannot be limited against the individual member,
named therein. Rather, it has to be understood from the
perspective of activities of syndicate. It, therefore, would be of
no substantial consequence even if appellant is not specifically
named in the previous chargesheet(s). His nexus, in whatever
capacity, with the organized crime syndicate would be
enough…….”
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 17/24
-- 17 of 24 --
3.13 Similarly it was held in
Kamlesh Kothari Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3984) as under:-
“40. Similarly, in Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra) the Supreme
court has inter alia held that it is settled law that that more
than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the
organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person
who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate.
41. Similarly in Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of
Maharashtra; (2009) SCC Online Bom 770, it was inter alia
held that if within a period of preceding ten years, one charge-
sheet has been filed in respect of organized crime committed
by the members of a particular crime syndicate, the said
charge-sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime
syndicate for the purpose of application of the MCOCA
against him even if he is involved in one case.
42. In fact dealing with all these judgments makes it clear that
the salient point in the nexus or link with the “organized
crime syndicate” is basically the foundation and a person can
be prosecuted if the link is established. It is not necessary that
the persons who are alleged to be members of organized
crime syndicate have more than one chargesheets filed against
them in an individual capacity. The prerequisite condition is
that chargesheet should have been filed against the syndicate.
Thus, second proposition seems to be that the chargesheet in
respect to the organized crime syndicate is sufficient to fulfill
the conditions under Section 2 (1) (d) of MCOCA. A
provisions of MCOCA can be attributed if a person is found
to be a facilitator or of an abettor as referred to in Sections 3
(2), 3 (3), 3 (4) or 3 (5) of MCOCA.”
3.14 In the case at hand there are multiple involvements
of kingpin Kusum and the co-accused persons/members of the
organized crime syndicate. In fact Kusum has already been
convicted in two NDPS matters and has a long history of
involvement in criminal activities related to drug trafficking for
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 18/24
-- 18 of 24 --
almost two decades. The nature of offences alleged in these
FIRs/chargesheets could not have been carried out by one person
alone and there was/is entire syndicate/module behind it.
Chargesheets have been filed and cognizance taken by competent
courts in more than 2 matters for commission of offences
punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more thereby
fulfilling the requirement under section 2 (1) (d). The applicant’s
nexus with the said crime syndicate prima facie emerges not only
through the banking transactions but also from his confessional
statement as well as that of other accused persons and statement
of independent witnesses. With the material on record against
him it is difficult for this court to arrive at the satisfaction that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is
not guilty of the offences alleged against him.
3.15 The main ground on which the applicant is seeking
bail is parity with co-accused Anuradha @ Chiku and Deepa
Singh who are presently on bail. It is his case that his role is
similar to/lesser than the role attributed to these accused persons
and when similarly placed accused persons are already on bail,
his further incarceration is unwarranted. However, in my
considered opinion the applicant cannot be enlarged on bail
merely on the ground of parity. At the outset, the applicant was
not only arrested much later in time than these accused persons
but it is also a matter of record that he has remained on interim
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 19/24
-- 19 of 24 --
bail for almost 102 days, since his arrest. Also the purpose for
which the interim bail was granted was not fulfilled as despite
ample opportunity the applicant did not undergo the surgery for
the ailment he was suffering from. It was only after the dismissal
of last interim bail/extension application that the present
application has been moved. Furthermore, considering his role as
well as MCOCA being a Special statute the applicant has to
satisfy the requirement of section 21(4) of the said Act before
being enlarged on bail, which he miserably fails to do so.
3.16 The material as placed on record by the prosecution,
which includes the disclosure statement of the applicant and the
other co-accused persons as well as statement of the approver &
protected witnesses, prima facie reveal that the applicant is/was a
key member of the organized crime syndicate and played an
active role in the same. He consciously, knowingly facilitated &
participated in the activities carried out by the crime syndicate
especially laundering of proceeds of crime.
3.17 Not only he is the brother of the kingpin, thereby
having close familial relation with the kingpin but further played
a major role in laundering, routing the proceeds of crime
generated by the crime syndicate through its illegal activities of
smack trafficking. His relation with the kingpin and the absence
of legitimate source of income to the tune of/viz-a-viz the
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 20/24
-- 20 of 24 --
transactions entered by him, on behalf of the syndicate, prima
facie establishes that he was aware as to the source of the money
he was dealing with, handling. As per the allegations against him
he received approximately Rs. 2 crore i.e proceeds of crime in his
account during the period 2022-2025.
3.18 The chargesheet as well as the reply to the bail
application gives detailed account of the numerous transactions
entered by the applicant on behalf of, for the crime syndicate.
The crime syndicate owns number of immovable properties
(almost 2 dozens) apart from movable assets which allegedly
have been purchased from ill-gotten money/proceeds of crime
generated through large scale smack trafficking. The applicant is
alleged to have received crores of rupees for purchasing
properties at UP and also permitted his bank accounts to receive
& transfer money belonging to the crime syndicate in question.
Agricultural land worth Rs. 90 lacs was purchased at village
Godha in his name as well as Ms. Pooja and the said amount was
received by him from Kusum and it proceeds of crime and had
no legitimate source. A sum of Rs. 20 lacs was deposited in his
firm M/s Raghav Enterprises’s bank account which was
immediately transferred in the bank account of kingpin Kusum
who then purchased a property at Azadpur Mandi. It is the
prosecution case that the entire amount received by the applicant
for purchasing the properties and deposits in his accounts were
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 21/24
-- 21 of 24 --
the proceeds of crime belonging to the crime syndicate.
Similarly, there are other transactions including deposit of Rs. 6.7
lacs in the account of Kusum’s son in law Vikas by the applicant
pursuant to which another property was purchased at Rohini.
Applicant’s bank accounts were repeatedly used for deposit of
proceeds of crime as well as for purchasing immovable
properties. Hence the applicant not only laundered the ill-gotten
money of the crime syndicate but also facilitated, financed
acquisition of properties for the crime syndicate.
3.19 It is well settled that the confessional statements
recorded u/s 18 of the Act which are in the form of exception,
departure from section 25 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act,
1872 can be made the sole basis of conviction and such
conviction is also permissible on the basis of the confessional
statement of the co-accused. These confessional statements of the
applicant and the co-accused cannot be meticulously examined at
this stage. It is not a stage to believe or disbelieve them, doubt
their veracity as the same would be a matter of trial, however,
prima facie the confessional statement of the applicant as well as
co-accused persons in addition to the material relating to the
bank transactions on record prima facie establish that the
applicant was an active/key operator, facilitator of the syndicate
viz-a-viz the proceeds of crime.
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 22/24
-- 22 of 24 --
3.20 No doubt the applicant is in custody since October
2025, though as discussed above he has been on interim bail for
around 102 days and it is well settled that the mandate under
Article 21 of the Constitution prohibits prolonged pre-trial
incarceration of the accused, particularly when there is no
reasonable likelihood of expeditious conclusion of trial, however,
in cases under the Special Statutes like MCOCA, which
incorporates conditions restricting bail, prolonged incarceration
though a relevant ground but cannot by itself be a determinative
ground to release the accused on bail. What is required in such
cases is harmonization of the constitutional guarantee of liberty
of an individual/accused and the legislative objective which led
to statutory provisions restricting bail. Article 21 protects
individual’s liberty, however, it also reflects the States obligation
to protect the life, liberty and security of the community of the
society. The facts of each case must be assessed independently
and the rights of the society, public at large must be balanced
with those of the accused, particularly in cases involving heinous
offences. Long incarceration cannot be a stand-alone
consideration and requires to be weighed viz-a-viz the nature of
offence and the material against the accused. Reliance in this
regard may be placed upon the law laid down in
Umesh @ Kala
Vs. State 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6570. Hence the period of
incarceration of around one year itself is not a factor enough
which entitles him to bail. The gravity of the offence, the nature
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Hariom 23/24
-- 23 of 24 --
of allegations outweigh the same. The applicant prima facie
furthered, facilitated the objective of the crime syndicate which
was to generate illegal wealth.
3.21 Therefore in view of above discussion, I am not
inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, bail application stands dismissed.
3.22 It is made clear that the findings recorded as above
are merely tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case.
Announced in the court
on 7th October 2026
(Gaurav Rao)
Special Exclusive Court 13 (MCOCA)
Rouse Avenue Courts,
New Delhi/07.10.2026
IA No. 10/26 State Vs. Kusum and ors 24/24
-- 24 of 24 --