Bombay High Court
Subhash S/O. Mohan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 February, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
{1}
ba85020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO.850 OF 2020
Subhash s/o Mohan Pawar Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar, advocate holding for
Mr.M.D.Godhamgaonkar, advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.B.Narwade, APP for the Respondent.
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1010 OF 2020
Virendra @ Satish s/o Sopanrao
Kanoji (Bhandari) Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar, advocate holding for
Mr.M.D.Godhamgaonkar, advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.B.Narwade, APP for the Respondent.
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.895 OF 2020
Vinod s/o Dayalu Dighore Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/by Mr.R.V.Gore with
Mr.D.A.Khandagale, advocates for the applicant.
Mr.S.B.Narwade, APP for the Respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2021 23:05:21 :::
{2}
ba85020.odt
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.905 OF 2020
Gurucharansingh @ Lucky s/o
Sampuransingh Gill Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr.Satej S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.B.Narwade, APP for the Respondent.
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV, J.
Reserved on : 06th January, 2021.
Pronounced on : 15th February, 2021.
ORDER :
1 The applicants (1) Subhash s/o Mohan Pawar -
applicant in B.A. No.850/2020, (2) Virendra @ Satish s/o
Sopanrao Kanoji (Bhandari) - applicant in B.A.No.1010/2020, (3)
Vinod s/o Dayalu Dighore (applicant in B.A. No.895/2020 and (4)
Gurucharansingh @ Lucky s/o Sampuransingh Gill - applicant in
B.A.No.905/2020, are seeking bail in connection with Crime No.
176/2019, registered with Itwara Police Station, Nanded for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 120-BB, 161, 384 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Under Sections 3,
25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 3(1)(i)(ii),
3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime
{3}
ba85020.odt
("MCOC") Act, 1999.
2 Brief facts of the crime are as follows:
On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Govind
Tulshiram Kokulwar, Crime No.176/2019 came to be registered at
Itwara Police Station, Nanded, for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 120-BB, 161, 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms
Act against unknown persons. On 17 th August, 2019, informant
Govind proceeded in his four wheeler bearing Registration
No.MH-B26-BBC-B7212 for visiting his ongoing construction at Raja
Ranjitsingh Market, Old Mondha, Nanded. After inspecting the
said construction, at about 4.30 p.m., informant Govind
proceeded towards his ofce. On reaching the ofce, situated at
Vinkar Colony, Nanded, the informant parked his four wheeler
and started proceeding towards his ofce. At that time, he felt
something like sustaining electric shock on his back of the body
and he fell down. He was immediately taken to a near hospital of
Dr.Bhopale. Dr.Bhopale after preliminary examination, advised to
shift the informant to a superspeciality hospital. Informant
Govind, thus, was thereafter taken to Global Hospital, Nanded
and on his examination, he was treated. The concerned doctor,
{4}
ba85020.odt
who has treated informant Govind, has opined that informant
Govind has sustained bullet injury on his back.
3 Thereafter investigation was carried out by the then
Investigating Ofcer and on the basis of CCTV footage and other
material collected during the course of the investigation, initially
six accused persons were traced out. Accused Bajrang @ Yodha
Bhimrao Narwade, accused Raju s/o Deorao Raut, accused
Gurucharansingh @ Lucky s/o Sampuransingh Gill (applicant in
B.A.No.905/2020, Syed Najidoddin @ Guddu s/o Syed Muniroddin,
Subhash s/o Mohan Pawar (applicant in B.A.No.850/2020) came
to be arrested in connection with the crime. Some of them came
to be arrested along with pistol and live cartridges, etc.
Thereafter two more accused persons came to be arrested in
connection with the present crime, namely, Virendra @ Satish s/o
Sopanrao Kanoji (applicant in B.A. No.1010/2020) and Vinod s/o
Dayalu Dighore (applicant in B.A. No.895/2020).
4 It was revealed during the course of investigation
that the accused persons had committed the crime for monetary
benefts in an organized manner under the leadership of one
Harvindersingh @ Rindha s/o Charansingh Sandhu (still
absconding). Therefore, for addition of charges under the
{5}
ba85020.odt
provisions of Maharashtra Organized Control of Crime ("MCOC")
Act, 1999, a proposal was submitted to the Special Inspector
General of Police, Nanded Range, Nanded. The proposal was
sanctioned by the Special Inspector General of Police, Nanded
Range, Nanded, on 20th November, 2019, and accordingly
Sections 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (2), (3) and (4) of the MCOC Act came to
be inserted in the crime and further investigation was carried on.
Applicant Vinod s/o Dayalu Dighore (applicant in
B.A.No.895/2020) was working as Police Inspector at Mangrulpir
Police Station, District Washim. His involvement, in the
commission of organized crime, along with other accused
persons, has been revealed.
5 Heard both sides.
6 Learned Counsel Mr.Godhamgaonkar, appearing for
applicant in B.A.Nos.850/2020, submits that the informant has
not disclosed name of this applicant in the First Information
Report. It is submitted that applicant Subhash s/o Mohan Pawar
was in jail at Pen, District Raigad from 26 th July, 2019 and there is
no evidence of his participation in the planning or execution of
alleged assault on the informant on 17 th August, 2019. The
learned Counsel submits that applicant Subhash came to be
{6}
ba85020.odt
arrested, in connection with present crime on 06 th November,
2019, on the basis of statement made by co-Baccused Raju
Raut. Learned Counsel further submits that even in the
supplementary statement, informant Govind has stated that he
learnt from police that fve persons have made a conspiracy to
kill him and in these fve persons, name of the applicant is
referred. The informant has not made any allegations against
applicant about any overt act or conspiracy. It is submitted that
in the statement of son of informant, namely Nagesh, there is no
whisper, direct or indirect, about any overt act on the part of
applicant-BSubhash in the commission of present crime. He
submits that on the face of such evidence, ingredients of
Sections 307, 120-BB, 161, 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, are not established.
7 So far as provisions of Maharashtra Organized Crimes
Act are concerned, the learned Counsel has taken me through
the ratio laid down in the judgments of this Court in the case of
Bhupendra @ Golu Suryakant Borkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1561 and (ii)
Mangesh Manik Kanchan & another Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2016 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 350, to
contend that in the absence of any material allegations against
{7}
ba85020.odt
members of gang, practically they cannot be prosecuted under
Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act and as such, bail cannot be denied
merely because they were members of gang and if released,
may commit similar crime in view of Section 21(4) of the MCOC
Act. The learned Counsel submits that the applicant may be
released on bail.
8 So far as applicant Virendra s/o Sopanrao Kanoji
(Bhandari) (applicant in B.A. No.1010/2020), learned Counsel
Mr.Godhamgaonkar submits that the First Information Report
came to be lodged against unknown persons. There is no
allegation about participation or any overt act on the part of this
applicant in the commission of crime. Even in the supplementary
statement, the informant has not attributed any role to this
applicant in the commission of crime. The informant, in the
supplementary statement, referred to the statement of his
nephew Krishna, who informed him, before the doctors of Global
Hospital informed him about the bullet injury sustained by the
informant, the present applicant stated that informant is injured
by bullet. In his statement, Krishna, nephew of informant, has
stated that after admission of the injured informant in the
hospital, applicant came there and shown his readiness for
carrying the injured for special treatment in the hospital outside
{8}
ba85020.odt
Nanded. The learned Counsel, thus, submits that neither the
offences under the Indian Penal Code nor under Maharashtra
Control Of Organized Crime Act are attracted in this case. In
support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance
upon the ratio laid down in the case of Bhupendra @ Golu
Suryakant Borkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in
2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1561 and (ii) Mangesh Manik Kanchan &
another Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2016 (1)
Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 350 The learned Counsel, thus, submits that the
applicant is not involved in any other offence. The learned
Counsel submits that the applicant may be released on bail.
9 Mr.V.D.Sapkal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
applicant Vinod Dayalu Dighore (B.A.No.895 of 2020) submits
that at the relevant time, the applicant was working as Police
Inspector at Mangrulpeer Police Station, District Washim. The
learned Senior Counsel submits that on the basis of
supplementary statement of the informant and his son, the
applicant is implicated in the present rime. It is submitted that
the provisions of MCOC Act are not applicable against present
applicant as the requirements in respect of continuing unlawful
activity, organized crime and crime syndicate, which are required
to be satisfed, are not fulflled. In support of this contention,
{9}
ba85020.odt
the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2277 and in the case of State
of Maharashtra and others Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and
another, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1339. The learned Senior
Counsel submits that no specifc role is attributed to the present
applicant. Neither there is any abetment nor there is any
previous offence registered against the applicant to attract
provisions of Maharashtra Control Of Organized Crime Act. The
learned Senior Counsel submits that there is no previous
sanction granted by the Special Inspector General of Police,
Nanded Range, Nanded for registering the offence under the
provisions of MCOC Act. The learned Senior Counsel, thus,
submits that the applicant may be released on bail.
10 Argument advanced by Mr.Satej S. Jadhav, learned
Counsel for applicant Gurucharangsingh s/o Sampurnsingh Gill
(applicant in Bail Application No.905/2020) is on similar lines, as
argued by the learned Counsel appearing for other applicants.
The learned Counsel submits that the applicant is arrested on the
basis of statement of co-Baccused. Though there is recovery of
gun and 7.65 caliber bullet from him, there is recovery of gun
{10}
ba85020.odt
capable of fring both 7.65 and 0.32 caliber bullets from
co-Baccused Raju. He submits that bullet of 0.32 caliber was
recovered from the informant's body. It is submitted that except
the present crime, the applicant is not co-Baccused in any crime
with other accused in this crime. The learned Counsel submits
that, therefore, provisions of MCOC Act are not attracted against
the present applicant. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits
that the applicant may be released on bail.
11 A common afdavit-Bin-Breply is fled in these four bail
applications on behalf of the Respondent-BState, sworn in by
Dr.Siddheshwar Baliram Bhore, Sub Divisional Police Ofcer,
Itwara, Nanded. In paragraph no. 4 of the afdavit, it is stated
that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the
accused had committed the crime for monetary benefts in an
organized manner and, therefore, provisions of MCOC Act are
added under the order passed by the Special Inspector General
of Police, Nanded Range, Nanded, on 20 th November, 2019. It is
stated that out of eight, seven accused persons were arrested
and seized muddemal property was sent to C.A., however, the
C.A. report is awaited. It is stated that overall, statements of 16
witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. It is stated in the afdavit that during the
{11}
ba85020.odt
course of investigation, confessional statement of arrested
accused Virendra Kanoji was recorded under Section 18 of the
MCOC Act, which supports the case of the prosecution. It has
come in the afdavit that the Additional Director General of
Police, Law and Order, Mumbai, has granted permission to fle
charge sheet under the provisions of MCOC Act against the
accused in the present crime. It is stated in the afdavit that
thorough investigation was carried out and there is recovery of
country made pistols and live rounds. It is submitted that Air gun
was recovered from accused Gurucharansingh and accused no.5
Raju Raut. It is submitted that the ballistic report reveals that
the hole caused to the clothes on the person of the injured
informant is caused by the bullet found in his body. The
examination report in respect of pistol recovered from accused
Gurucharansingh @ Lucky reveals that the country made pistol
recovered from him is capable of chambering and fring 7.65 mm
pistol cartridges. It is further stated that the examination report
also reveals that the Air Gun and Country made Pistol and live
rounds seized from the house of accused Subhash Pawar, at the
instance of accused Raju Raut, are in working condition and the
same were used for fring prior to their receipt in the laboratory
and the country made hand-Bgun is capable of chambering and
fring 7.65 mm pistol cartridge as well as 0.32 inch revolver
{12}
ba85020.odt
cartridge. The chart in respect of each applicant in respective
Bail Applications, disclosing sufcient material against them
showing their involvement in the aforesaid crime, is also annexed
with the afdavit-Bin-Breply.
12 The learned A.P.P. has, therefore, strongly resisted
the application on the ground that the gang leader accused
Harvindarsingh @ Rindha is not yet arrested as he is still
absconding and if the applicants are released on bail, further
investigation and arrest of absconding accused would be
hampered. The learned A.P.P. submits that there is terror of
absconding accused Rindha, his gang and hirelings, including the
present applicants in Nanded district and if the applicants are
released on bail, they will certainly pressurize the witnesses who
hail from Nanded, which would affect fair trial before the Special
Court. In support of his submissions, the learned A.P.P. has
placed reliance on the following pronouncements.
01 Vinod G. Asrani Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2007 SCC (2) 633;
02 Anil Sadashiv Nanduskar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra,
2008 MLJ Cri. (3) 650;
03 Govind Sakharam Ubhe Vs. The State of
Maharashtra,
2009 (3) Mh.L.J. Cri. 1903
{13}
ba85020.odt
04 Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, 2006(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 623;
05 Gokul Bhagaji Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra,
2006 ALL MR (Cri) 389;
13 The learned A.P.P., therefore, submits that the
applicants, in the aforesaid respective bail applications, may not
be released on bail.
14 The incident had taken place on 17 th August, 2019.
Informant Govind had proceeded in his four wheeler bearing
Registration No.MH-B20-BBC-B7212 for visiting his ongoing
construction at Raja Ranjitsingh Market, Nanded. After
inspecting the said construction, at about 04.30 p.m., informant
Govind proceeded to his ofce. On reaching the ofce situate at
Venkat Colony, the informant had parked his four wheeler and
started proceeding towards his ofce on foot. At that time, he
felt something like electric shock on the back of his body and he
fell down. He was immediately taken to one private hospital viz.
Global Hospital of Dr.Bhopale and as per his advice, the
informant was shifted to one Super-Bspeciality hospital. On his
examination, the concerned Medical Ofcer, who has treated
him, has opined that informant Govind has sustained bullet injury
on his back. It has been revealed during the course of
{14}
ba85020.odt
investigation that the accused persons, including the present
applicants, have committed the offence for monetary benefts in
an organized manner under the leadership of co-Baccused
Harvindersingh @ Rindha Charansingh (still absconding).
15 On careful perusal of the charge sheet, it appears
that on 07th December, 2019, the supplementary statement of
informant Govind was recorded. According to him, he was given
treatment at Global Hospital, Nanded for some time. After
getting primary treatment, informant Govind was fnally shifted
to Hinduja hospital, Mumbai. Informant Govind has undergone
surgery in Hinduja hospital and the bullet in the back portion of
his body was removed. While he was under treatment in his
house, his supplementary statement was recorded. According to
him, on 05th February, 2018, co-Baccused Harvindersingh @
Rindha has sent one whatsapp message on the mobile of the
informant. (The informant has mentioned both the cell numbers
i.e. cell number of co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha and his
own mobile number). Informant Govind has further explained
that it was a threatening message. The said message was
specifcally in respect of demanding an amount of Rs.One crore
as a ransom. The informant Govind has ignored the said
message. However, on 02nd November, 2018, co-Baccused
{15}
ba85020.odt
Harvindersingh @ Rindha, through his associate Akash Gadiwale
has again demanded an amount of Rs.One crore as ransom on
the another mobile number of the informant. Informant Govind
has further stated in his supplementary statement that on the
same day at about 11 p.m., he has received a phone call of co-B
accused no.8-B API Vinod Dayalu Dighore (applicant herein)
informing him as to whether he has received any threats on
mobile demanding amount of ransom. Informant Govind has
inquired with co-Baccused API Vinod as to how he came to know
about the threats extended to him. The informant has disclosed
to co-Baccused API Vinod that threats were extended by co-B
accused Harvindersingh @ Rindha. Informant Govind got
surprised by the said call of co-Baccused API Vinod, as the
threatening message received from Harvindersingh @ Rindha
was especially within the knowledge of informant and he has not
disclosed about the same to anyone. However, co-Baccused API
Vinod informed the informant that he should come to the house
of co-Baccused Virendra @ Viru Bhandari. On 03 rd November,
2018, informant Govind went to the house of co-Baccused
Virendra @ Viru where co-Baccused no.8 - API Vionod was also
present there. On reaching there, co-Baccused no.8 - API Vinod
directly asked the informant as to whether he has received a
message from co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha and as to
{16}
ba85020.odt
how much amount has been demanded. Informant disclosed to
co-Baccused API Vinod that co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha
has demanded him amount of Rs.One Crore. Thereafter co-B
accused API Vinod and co-Baccused Virendra told the informant
that he should not take any tension and they would talk to co-B
accused Harvindersingh @ Rindha. Though thereafter co-B
accused Harvindersingh @ Rindha has not made a call to the
informant nor sent any message, however, while the informant
was hospitalised for his bullet injury, co-Baccused Harvindersingh
@ Rindha again forwarded an audio clip extending threats on
the cell phone of son of the informant, namely Nagesh on 20 th
August, 2019. The informant Govind was also informed by his
nephew Krishna that after the said incident of 17 th August, 2019,
when the informant was admitted in the Global hospital, before
his medical examination, co-Baccused Virendra @ Viru (applicant
herein) has disclosed to his nephew Krishna that informant
Govind has sustained bullet injury on his back. Even for no
reason, co-Baccused Virendra @ Viru went to Mumbai to meet
informant Govind in the hospital and he used to talk on his
mobile suspiciously in low voice informing the activities of
informant to someone. According to the informant, he was
assaulted by the gang headed by co-Baccused Harvindersingh @
Rindha due to non fulfllment of said demand for Rs.One Crore.
{17}
ba85020.odt
16 It has been transpired during the course of
investigation that co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha, who is a
gang leader, hails from Nanded. On earlier occasion, Crime
No.174 of 2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
307, 397, 398, 120-BB, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 3/25 and 27(2) of the Indian Arms Act along with offence
punishable under Sections 3(i), 3(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC
Act, came to be registered against him. In the said crime, after
completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted.
In connection with the said crime, all the members of the gang
headed by co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha came to be
arrested. Co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha has organized
new gang of criminal minded persons and started demanding
ransom and assaulting the people for non compliance of the
same. Though co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha hails from
Nanded, however, he is a wanted criminal in the State of Punjab
and there are in all 23 crimes registered against him. It has been
revealed during the course of investigation that co-Baccused
Harvindersingh @ Rindha has organized various gangs in the
different States for demanding ransom. He has also provided
modern technology weapons along with mobile hand sets to the
members of his gang.
{18}
ba85020.odt
17 The applicant co-Baccused no.6 Subhash Mohan Pawar
is resident of village Barad, Tq. Hadgaon. There are fve crimes
registered against him including the crimes for the offences
punishable for committing murder, attempt to commit murder,
demanding ransom, committing dacoities, etc. It has also been
revealed during the course of investigation that he was
continuously in touch with co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha.
He has kept two pistols and one live cartridge in his house and
out of which, one pistol and one live cartridge has been used by
co-Baccused no.2 - Gurucharansingh (applicant herein) in the
present crime. Said pistol was given to co-Baccused no.2
Gurucharansingh by co-Baccused no.5 Raju Deorao Raut.
18 So far as applicant co-Baccused no.7 - Virendra is
concerned, there are twelve crimes registered against him
including attempt to commit murder, assaulting public servant,
etc. It has been revealed during the course of investigation that
co-Baccused Virendra continuously remained in touch with father
of co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha. Further, co-Baccused
no.7 - Virendra is also close associate of co-Baccused no.8 - API
Vinod Dighore.
{19}
ba85020.odt
19 Applicant co-Baccused no.8 - API Vinod Dighore was
working as A.P.I. during the period from 2015 to 2019 in Crime
Branch, Nanded. Even though informant Govind has received a
threatening call from co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha for
demand of huge amount, however, co-Baccused API Vinod has
called the informant in the house of co-Baccused no.7 Virendra for
settlement. He has not initiated any action against co-Baccused
Rindha. It is also highly objectionable that co-Baccused no.8 - API
Vinod remained in contact continuously with co-Baccused persons
including co-Baccused no.7 Virendra though they are having
criminal background. It is also revealed during the course of
investigation that co-Baccused no.8 - Vinod remained in contact
with co-Baccused no.2 Gurucharansingh and co-Baccused no.6-B
Subhash Mohan Pawar on phone. It has been transpired during
the course of investigation that during the tenure of co-Baccused
Vinod in Crime Branch at Nanded, threatening calls from co-B
accused Harvindersingh @ Rindha's gang were increased.
20 So far as co-Baccused no.2 - applicant
Gurucharansingh is concerned, the pistol used in the commission
of crime along with 3 live cartridges came to be recovered from
him. There are six crimes registered against him.
{20}
ba85020.odt
21 Learned Counsel Mr.Godhamgaonkar has vehemently
submitted on behalf of applicant - co-Baccused Subhash that
except the statement of co-Baccused Raju Raut, there is hardly
any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the
alleged crime. It is also submitted that even the statement of
co-Baccused Raju is also not sufcient to infer about the
involvement of applicant Subhash in the commission of crime.
22 The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the
decision in the case of Bhupendra @ Golu Suryakant Borkar
Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1561,
wherein, in the facts of the said case, by referring the view
expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, previously
registered offences having anything common with the offences
registered in the present crime and if they do not bear any
similarity or commonality to the present crime, they could not be
taken into consideration for denying the relief of bail ., the
learned Single Judge of this Court has released the applicant
therein on bail It is also observed that one of the important
criteria to decide the application for bail for the offences
punishable under the provisions of the MCOC Act is the
possibility of committing a similar offence.
{21}
ba85020.odt
23 In the instant case, there are 5 crimes registered
against co-Baccused Subhash. Crime No.5/2016 came to be
registered at Police Station Vasantnagar, District Yeotmal, for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Crime No.140/2019 is registered at Police Station Hadgaon for
the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal
Code. Crime No.246 of 2019 came to be registered at Police
Station Vasmat, District Hingoli, for the offence punishable under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.118 of 2019 is
registered at Police Station Pain, District Raigad, for the offence
punishable under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code;
and present crime no.176 of 2019 is registered at Itwara Police
Station , Nanded for the offence punishable under Sections 307,
120-BB, 161, 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
There are other offences and it can be reasonably inferred that
the applicant is having a tendency of committing similar offences
if released on bail. Furthermore, the previously registered
offences have commonness with the offences registered in the
present crime.
24 I have carefully perused the statements of the
witnesses at page nos.47, 129, 49 and 130. Prima facie, it
appears that statements of these witnesses indicate involvement
{22}
ba85020.odt
of the applicants-Baccused persons in the commission of crime in
an organized manner as member of the gang.
25 Learned Counsel Mr.Godhamgaonkar, while arguing
the case on behalf of co-Baccused Virendra, vehemently
submitted that except the evidence that the applicant-BVirendra
used to chat on whatsapp with co-Baccused Harvindersingh @
Rindha, there is no connecting evidence against the applicant.
The learned Counsel placed reliance on the order dated 09 th
November, 2020, passed by this Court in Criminal Application
No.370 of 2020 (Rajendra s/o Gulabrao Armarkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra), wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court at
Nagpur has granted bail to the accused persons in connection
with the crime registered under the provisions of MCOC Act. In
terms of provisions of sub-Bsection (4) of Section 21 of the MCOC
Act, no person accused of an offence punishable under MCOC Act
shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfed that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail. The learned Single Judge has referred to the decision in the
case of Narendra Singh and another Vs. State of M.P.,
(2004) 10 SCC 699, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed that the restrictions on the part of the Court to grant
{23}
ba85020.odt
bail should not be pushed too far and the bail may be granted
having regard to the material brought on record if the Court is
satisfed that in all probability, the accused may not be
ultimately convicted. It is also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the provisions of MCOC Act must receive a strict
construction so as pass the test of reasonableness.
26 Learned Counsel Mr.Godhamgaonkar has further
placed reliance on the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Jagan, reported in 2011 (5) MLJ 386, wherein the Full Bench,
while answering the reference as regards ingredients necessary
to make out the case of an organized crime, as defned under the
MCOC Act, has held that, the following ingredients will be
necessary to make the case of an organized crime. Those
ingredients are: (i) that there has to be continuing unlawful
activities; (ii) that such activity will have to be by an individual,
singly or jointly; (iii) that such an activity is either by a member
of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate;
(iv) that there has to be use of violence or threat of violence or
intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means; (v) that such
an activity has to be with the objective of gaining pecuniary
benefts, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for the
person who undertakes such an activity or any other person or
{24}
ba85020.odt
promoting insurgency.
27 In the supplementary statement of the informant
dated 07.12.2019, he has explained about the threat received
from co-Baccused gang leader Harvindersingh @ Rindha. In the
frst supplementary statement informant named applicant
Virendra along with applicant API Vinod Dighore in respect of
meeting of "settlement" scheduled at the house of applicant
Virendra on 03.12.2019. Furthermore, applicant-Baccused
Virendra already knew about the gun shot injury though nature of
the said injury was not disclosed by the informant to anybody till
that time. Thus, the only inference, that can be drawn, is that
applicant-Baccused Virendra was knowing about the fring and
injury by bullet sustained by the informant on his back. I have
carefully gone through the statements of the witnesses at page
nos.61, 133, 63, 134, 68, 69, 75 and the confessional statement
of applicant-Baccused Virendra from page nos.149 to 154. Thus,
so far as the ingredients explained in the case cited supra, prima
facie there is evidence to attract those ingredients.
28 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Sapkal, appearing for the
applicant-Baccused API Vinod Dighore, submits that the applicant
was working in the Local Crime Branch, Nanded since 2015 to
{25}
ba85020.odt
2018. He has been transferred from Nanded to MangrulPeer,
District Washim on 21.06.2019. The alleged incident has
occurred on 17.08.2021 i.e. after two months from his transfer.
The learned Senior Counsel submits that in the supplementary
statement of the informant and his son, the applicant-Baccused
API Vinod Dighore came to be implicated in this case. The
learned Senior Counsel submits that permission was sought by
the Investigating Ofcer against 13 persons for addition of
provisions of MCOC Act and the name of the applicant API Vinod
Dighore was not mentioned in those 13 persons. The Special
Inspector General of Police, Nanded, has passed an order on
20.11.2019 granting approval to include provisions of Sections
3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act in the present Crime
No.176/2019 and fnally, approval was granted under Section
23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act by the Special Inspector General of
Police, Nanded, against six persons. The learned Senior Counsel
submits that the applicant API Vinod, since was working in Local
Crime Branch, Nanded, provisions of Section 3(2) and Section 24
of the MCOC Act were made applicable to him. The learned
Senior Counsel submits that there are certain conditions required
to be satisfed and those are, there should be continuing
unlawful activity by organized crime syndicate and there should
be a organized crime. The MCOC Act specifcally provides the
{26}
ba85020.odt
defnition of abetment under Section 2(1)(a) of the MCOC Act.
Unless all these requirements are satisfed, the person cannot be
held guilty thereof. The learned Senior Counsel, in order to
substantiate his contention, placed reliance on the judgment in
the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State
of Maharashtra and another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2277.
The learned Senior Counsel has particularly placed reliance on
paragraphs no.30 to 33, which reads as under:
"30 The interpretation clause as regard the
expression 'abet' does not refer to the defnition of
abetment as contained in Section 107 of IPC. It
refers to such meaning which can be attributed to
it in the general sense with grammatical variations
and cognate expressions. However, having regard
to the cognate meaning, the term may read in the
light of the defnition of these words under
Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code.
The inclusive defnition although expansive in
nature, "communication" or "association" must be
read to mean such communication or association
which is in aid of or render assistance in the
commission of organized crime. In our considered
opinion, any communication or association which
has no nexus with the commission of organized
crime would not come within the purview thereof.
It must mean assistance to organized crime or
organized crime syndicate or to a person involved
in either of them. It, however, includes (a)
{27}
ba85020.odt
communication or (b) association with any person
with the actual knowledge or (c) having reason to
believe that such person is engaged in assisting in
any manner, an organized crime syndicate.
Communication to, or association with, any person
by itself, as was contended by Mr.Sharan, would
not, in our considered opinion, come within
meaning of the aforementioned provision. The
communication or association must relate to a
person. Such communication or association to the
person must be with the actual knowledge or
having reason to believe that he is engaged in
assisting in any manner an organized crime
syndicate. Thus, the offence under Section 3(2) of
MCOCA must have a direct nexus with the offence
committed by an organized crime syndicate. Such
abetment of commission of offence must be by
way of accessories before the commission of an
offence. An offence may be committed by a public
servant by reason of acts of omission and
commission which would amount to tampering
with the investigation or to help an accused. Such
an act would make him an accessory after the
commission of the offence. It is interesting to
note that whereas Section 3(2) having regard to
the defnition of the term 'abet' refers directly to
commission of an offence or assisting in any
manner an organized crime syndicate, Section 24
postulates a situation where a public servant
renders any help or support both before or after
commission of an offence by a member of an
organized crime syndicate or abstains from taking
lawful measures under this Act.
{28}
ba85020.odt
31 Interpretation clauses contained in Sections
2(d), 2(e) and 2(f) are inter-Brelated. An 'organized
crime syndicate' refers to an 'organized crime'
which in turn refers to 'continuing unlawful
activity'. As at present advised, it may not be
necessary for us to consider as to whether the
words "or other lawful means" contained in
Section 2(e) should be read " ejusdem generis" /
"noscitur-Ba-Bsociis" with the words (i) violence, (ii)
threat of violence, (iii) intimidation or (iv) coercion.
We may, however, notice that the word 'violence'
has been used only in Sections 146 and 153A of
the Indian Penal Code. The word 'intimidation'
alone has not been used therein but only Section
506 occurring in Chapter XXII thereof refers to
'criminal intimidation'. The word 'coercion' fnds
place only in the Contract Act. If the words
'unlawful means' is to be widely construed as
including any or other unlawful means, having
regard to the provisions contained in Sections 400,
401 and 413 of the IPC relating to commission of
offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust,
the provisions of the said Act can be applied,
which prima facie, does not appear to have been
intended by the Parliament.
32 The Statement of Objects and
Reasons clearly state as to why the said Act had to
be enacted. Thus, it will be safe to presume that
the expression 'any unlawful means' must refer to
any such act which has a direct nexus with the
commission of a crime which MCOCA seeks to
{29}
ba85020.odt
prevent or control. In other words, an offence
falling within the defnition of organized crime and
committed by an organized crime syndicate is the
offence contemplated by the Statement of Objects
and Reasons. There are offences and offences
under the Indian Penal Code and other penal
statutes providing for punishment of three years
or more and in relation to such offences more than
one charge-Bsheet may be fled. As we have
indicated hereinabove, only because a person
cheats or commits a criminal breach of trust, more
than once, the same by itself may not be sufcient
to attract the provisions of MCOCA.
33 Furthermore, mens rea is a necessary
ingredient for commission of crime under MCOCA."
29 The learned Senior Counsel submits that there are no
allegations against the applicant API Vinod Dighore ascribing any
specifc role to him directly or indirectly. There is no role
attributed to him even after the alleged commission of offence.
The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment
in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Lalit
Somdatta Nagpal and another, reported in 2007 AIR SCW
1339; and has specifcally referred to paragraphs no.61 to 66,
which are as follows:
{30}
ba85020.odt
"61 However, we are in agreement with the
submission that having regard to the stringent
provisions of MCOCA, its provisions will have to be
very strictly interpreted and the concerned
authorities would have to be bound down to the
strict observance of the said provisions. There can
be no doubt that the provisions of the MCOCA
have been enacted to deal with organized criminal
activity in relation to offences which are likely to
create terror and to endanger and unsettle the
economy of the country for which stringent
measures have been adopted. The provisions of
the MCOCA seek to deprive a citizen of his right to
freedom at the very initial stage of the
investigation, making it extremely difcult for him
to obtain bail. Other provisions relating to the
admission of evidence relating to the electronic
media have also been provided for. In such a
situation it is to be seen whether the investigation
from its very inception has been conducted strictly
in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
62 As has been repeatedly emphasized on
behalf of all the parties, the offence under MCOCA
must comprise continuing unlawful activity
relating to organized crime undertaken by an
individual singly or jointly, either as a member of
the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate by use of coercive or other unlawful
means with the objective of gaining pecuniary
benefts or gaining undue economic or other
advantage for himself or for any other person or
for promoting insurgency. In the instant case, both
{31}
ba85020.odt
Lalit Somdutt Nagpal and Anil Somdutt Nagpal
have been shown to have been involved in several
cases of a similar nature which are pending trial or
are under investigation. As far as Kapil Nagpal is
concerned, his involvement has been shown only
in respect of CR No.25/03 of Rasayani Police
Station, Raigad, under Sections 468, 420, 34,
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 7, 9 and 10 of
the Essential Commodities Act. In our view, the
facts as disclosed justifed the application of the
provisions of the MCOCA to Lalit Nagpal and Anil
Nagpal. However, the said ingredients are not
available as far as Kapil Nagpal is concerned, since
he has not been shown to be involved in any
continuing unlawful activity. Furthermore, in the
approval that was given by the Special Inspector
General of Police, Kolhapur Range, granting
approval to the Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Enforcement), Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai to
commence investigation under Section 23(1) of
MCOCA, Kapil Nagpal has not been mentioned. It
is only at a later stage with the registering of CR
No.25/2003 of Rasayani Police Station, Raigad,
that Kapil Nagpal was roped in with Lalit Nagpal
and Somdutt Nagpal and permission was granted
to apply the provisions of the MCOCA to him as
well by Order dated 22nd August, 2005.
63 In addition to the above, a glance at the
permission sought by P.I.L.C.B., Raigad, on 18 th
August, 2005 seeking permission for registering an
offence under Section1(ii) MCOCA 1999 against
Lalit Nagpal, Anil Nagpal, Kapil Nagpal and one
{32}
ba85020.odt
Parasnath Ramdular Singh will reveal that such
permission was being sought for, as far s Kapil
Nagpal is concerned, in respect of an offence
allegedly under Section 63 of the Sales Tax Act,
which in our opinion would not attract the
provisions of the MCOCA.
64 We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding
that as far as Kapil Lalit Nagpal is concerned, the
provisions of the MCOCA have been misapplied to
him.
65 Since we have already held that the
limitation of the power to impose punishment only
for a maximum period of two years for an offence
under the 1981 Act did not preclude the
authorities from applying the provisions of the
MCOCA for offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the
1955 Act as well as the 1981 Act, we are left with
the question as to whether the same had been
applied to the case of Lalit Nagpal and Anil Nagpal
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
MCOCA 1999. Having regard to the stringent
provisions of the MCOCA, Section 23(1)(a)
provides a safeguard to the accused in that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, no investigation of an alleged
offence of organized crime under the MCOCA,
1999 can be commenced without the prior
approval of a police ofcer not below the rank of
Deputy Inspector General of Police. An additional
protection has been given under Sub-Bsection (2) of
Section 23 which prohibits any Special Court from
{33}
ba85020.odt
taking cognizance of any offence under the Act
without the previous sanction of a police ofcer
not below the rank of Additional Director General
of Police.
66 In the instant case, though sanction had
been given by the Special Inspector General of
Police, Kolhapur Range, on 31st August, 2004,
granting permission under Section 23(1)(a) of the
MCOCA 1999 to apply its provisions to the alleged
offences said to have been committed by Anil
Nagpal, Lalit Nagpal and Vijay Nagpal, such
sanction reveals complete non-Bapplication of mind
as the same appears to have been given upon
consideration of an enactment which is non est.
Even if the subsequent approval order of 22 nd
August, 2005 is to be taken into consideration, the
organized crime referred to in the said order is
with regard to the alleged violation of Sales Tax
and Excise Laws, which, in our view, was not
intended to be the basis for application of the
provisions of the MCOCA 1999. To apply the
provisions of MCOCA something more in the
nature of coercive acts and violence is required to
be spelt out so as to bring the unlawful activity
complained of within the defnition of "organized
crime" in Section 2(a) of MCOCA."
30 The learned Senior Counsel submits that there is no
role attributed to the applicant API Vinod Dighore nor any
allegations about abetment are made against him. There is no
previous charge sheet against the applicant in respect of any
{34}
ba85020.odt
crime which would attract provisions of Section 23 of the MCOC
Act. There is no previous sanction granted by the Special
Inspector General of Police for registering the offence under the
provisions of MCOC Act against the present applicant API Vionod.
31 I have carefully gone through the statements of the
informant. It is shocking that before the informant has disclosed
about the threats extended to him by co-Baccused gang leader
Harvindersingh @ Rindha, applicant API Vinod, on his own, has
made a phone call to the informant making a query with him as
to whether he has received call on his mobile giving threats from
co-Baccused gang leader Harvindersingh @ Rindha. It is equally
surprising that the applicant, who is holding a responsible post in
the police department, instead of directing registration of the
crime and taking any preventive steps, called the informant in
the house of co-Baccused applicant Virendra for "settlement" talk.
It is difcult to understand the meaning of "settlement". The
informant must have been frightened by the threatening calls for
demand of ransom Rs.One crore as also that after receiving said
call in the night, the applicant API Vinod Dighore has called him
asking him about the details of the threatening calls and after
arranging meeting for "settlement". I have gone through the
statements of the witnesses from page nos.53, 124, 75, 80, 99
{35}
ba85020.odt
and 114 to 120. There is also confessional statement of
applicant-Baccused Gurucharansingh. Prima facie, there is
evidence about assisting the organized crime syndicate which
includes communication and association. Thus, prima facie,
there are reasons to believe that the applicant-Baccused API Vinod
Dighore is engaged in assisting the organized crime syndicate.
32 In the case of Vinod G. Asrani Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2007 AIR (SC) 1253, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Section
23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act. In paragraphs no.8 and 9 of the
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following
observations:
"8 We have carefully considered the
submissions made on behalf of the respective
parties and the relevant provisions of MCOCA and
we are of the view that the High Court did not
commit any error in dismissing the petitioners writ
application. We are inclined to accept Mr.Altaf
Ahmed's submissions that non-Binclusion of the
petitioner's name in the approval under Section 23
(1) (a) of MCOCA was not fatal to the investigation
as far as the petitioner is concerned. On the other
hand, his name was included in the sanction
granted under Section 23 (2) after the stage of
investigation into the complaint where his
{36}
ba85020.odt
complicity was established. The offences alleged
to have been committed by the petitioner has a
direct bearing and/or link with the activities of the
other accused as part of the Chhota Rajan gang
which was an organized crime syndicate.
9 As pointed out by Mr. Ahmed, this Court in
the case of Kari Choudhary Vs. Mst. Sita Devi &
Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 714, had while considering a
similar question observed that the ultimate object
of every investigation is to fnd out whether the
offences alleged to have been committed and, if
so, who had committed it. The scheme of the
Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that
once the information of the commission of an
offence is received under Section 154 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the investigating authorities
take up the investigation and fle charge sheet
against whoever is found during the investigation
to have been involved in the commission of such
offence. There is no hard and fast rule that the
First Information Report must always contain the
names of all persons who were involved in the
commission of an offence. Very often the names
of the culprits are not even mentioned in the F.I.R.
and they surface only at the stage of the
investigation. The scheme under Section 23 of
MCOCA is similar and Section 23(1) (a) provides a
safeguard that no investigation into an offence
under MCOCA should be commenced without the
approval of the concerned authorities. Once such
approval is obtained, an investigation is
commenced. Those who are subsequently found
{37}
ba85020.odt
to be involved in the commission of the organized
crime can very well be proceeded against once
sanction is obtained against them under Section
23 (2) of MCOCA."
33 It is, thus, clear that non-Binclusion of the name in the
approval under Section 23(1)(a) is not fatal to the investigation.
34 In the instant case, prima facie, the link is
established and the applicant has direct or indirect bearing
and/or link with the activities of the accused persons in the
crime.
35 In the case of Govind Sakharam Ubhe Vs. State
of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 All M.R. (Cri.) 1903, relied
upon by the learned A.P.P., the Division Bench of this Court has
discussed about the evidence where a group of persons -
members of crime syndicate indulge in organized crime to gain
pecuniary benefts and are continuing unlawful activity. Further,
explaining the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act, the
Division Bench has observed that nexus or link of person with
organized crime is crux of term. In paragraphs no.35 to 37 and
39, the Division Bench has made following observations:
{38}
ba85020.odt
"35 It is now necessary to go to the defnition of
continuing unlawful activity. Section 2(1)(d)
defnes continuing unlawful activity to mean an
activity prohibited by law for the time being in
force, which is a cognizable offence punishable
with imprisonment of three years or more,
undertaking 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-Bsheet have been fled before a Competent
Court within the preceding ten years and that
Court have taken cognizance of such offence.
Thus, for an activity to be a continuing unlawful
activity -B
a) the activity must be prohibited by law;
b) it must be a cognizable offence punishable
with imprisonment of three years or more;
c) it must be undertaken single or jointly;
d) it must be undertaken as a member of an
organized syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate;
e) in respect of which more than one charge-B
sheet have been fled before a Competent Court.
36 The words in respect of which more than
one charge-Bsheet have been fled cannot go with
the words a member of a crime syndicate because
in that case, these words would have read as in
{39}
ba85020.odt
respect of whom more than one charge-Bsheet
have been fled.
37 But even otherwise, if all provisions are read
together we reach the same conclusion. Section
2(1)(d) which defnes continuing unlawful activity
sets down a period of 10 years within which more
than one charge-Bsheet have to be fled. The
members of the crime syndicate operate either
singly or jointly in commission of organized crime.
They operate in different modules. A person may
be a part of the module which jointly undertakes
an organized crime or he may single as a member
of the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of
such syndicate undertake an organized crime. In
both the situations, the MCOCA can be applied. It
is the membership of organized crime syndicate
which makes a person liable under the MCOCA.
This is evident from section 3(4) of the MCOCA
which states that any person who is a member of
an organized crime syndicate shall be punished
with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable
to fne, subject to a minimum of fne of Rs.5 lakhs.
The charge under the MCOCA ropes in a person
who as a member of the organized crime
syndicate commits organized crime i.e. acts of
extortion by giving threats, etc. to gain economic
advantage or supremacy, as a member of the
crime syndicate singly or jointly. Charge is in
respect of unlawful activities of the organized
crime syndicate. Therefore, if within a period of
preceding ten years, one charge-Bsheet has been
fled in respect of organized crime committed by
{40}
ba85020.odt
the members of a particular crime syndicate, the
said charge-Bsheet 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. The organized crime
committed by him will be a part of the continuing
unlawful activity of the organized crime syndicate.
What is important is the nexus or the link of the
person with organized crime syndicate. The link
with the organized crime syndicate is the crux of
the term continuing unlawful activity. If this link is
not established, that person cannot be roped in.
39 The submission on behalf of the appellant is
that even though all the four accused namely, A,
B, C and D may be members of the organized
crime syndicate since against each of the accused
not more than one charge-Bsheet is fled, it cannot
be held that they are engaged in continuing
unlawful activity as contemplated under Section
2(1)(d) of the MCOCA. Apart from the reasons
which we have given hereinabove as to why such
a construction is not possible, having regard to the
object with which the MCOCA was enacted,
namely to make special provisions for prevention
and control of organized crime syndicate and for
coping with criminal activity by organized crime
syndicate, in our opinion, section 2(1)(d) cannot
be so construed. Such a construction will defeat
the object of the MCOCA. What is contemplated
under section 2(1)(d) of the MCOCA is that
activities prohibited by law for the time being in
force which are punishable as described therein
{41}
ba85020.odt
have been undertaken either singly or jointly as a
member of organized crime syndicate and in
respect of which more than one charge-Bsheets
have been fled. Stress is on the unlawful
activities committed by the organized crime
syndicate. Requirement of one or more charge-B
sheet is qua the unlawful activities of the
organized crime syndicate."
36 The Division Bench, in paragraph 39 of the judgment,
has concluded the issue and observed that the requirement of
one or more charge sheet is qua the unlawful activities of the
organized crime syndicate. It is also observed that what is
contemplated under Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act is that the
activities prohibited by law for the time being in force which are
punishable as described therein have been undertaken either
singly or jointly as a member of organized crime syndicate and in
respect of which more than one charge-Bsheets have been fled.
Thus, there is an unlawful activity committed by the organized
crime syndicate and, therefore, the requirement of one or more
charge sheet is qua the unlawful activities of the organized crime
syndicate. Prima facie, the applicant-Baccused API Vinod Dighore
appears to have assisted the unlawful activity of the organized
crime syndicated led by gang leader co-Baccused Harvindersingh
@ Rindha.
{42}
ba85020.odt
37 Learned Counsel Mr.Jadhav, appearing for
applicant/accused-BGurucharansingh, submits that there is no
evidence against the applicant. The applicant is not identifed in
the Test Identifcation Parade. The applicant allegedly made
confessional statement to his inmate in Harsool Prison, however,
it has no evidenciary value. The learned Counsel submits that
though allegedly there is recovery of one country-Bmade pistol
and three live cartridges of KF 7.65 caliber from the applicant-B
Gurucharansingh, however, a bullet of 0.32 caliber was
recovered from the informant's body. It further appears from the
evidence collected by the Investigating Ofcer that the gun
allegedly recovered from the applicant is capable of fring 7.65
caliber bullet. So far as gun recovered from co-Baccused Raju
Raut is concerned, the same is capable of fring both i.e. 7.65
and 0.32 caliber bullets, respectively. The learned Counsel
submits that merely on the basis of the observation at page
no.68 pertaining to brushing marks of bullet from the applicant
matches with the one recovered from the body of the informant,
is so vague in nature to arrive at any conclusion. The learned
Counsel submits that the ballistic report favours the applicant.
Except the present crime, there is not a single crime registered
against the applicant-Baccused Gurucharansingh.
{43}
ba85020.odt
38 On perusal of the supplementary statement of the
informant, dated 06.01.2020, it appears that the informant, by
referring to his meeting in the house of accused-Bapplicant
Virendra, as arranged by accused-Bapplicant API Vinodh Dighore,
explained that he became relaxed due to the so called
settlement made. However, since he is not giving ransom, on
the say of co-Baccused gang leader Harvindersingh @ Rindha,
present applicant - Gurucharansingh fred gun shot on the
informant. The witness at page no.40 has given reference of two
persons came on motorcycle on the date of incident i.e.
16.08.2019 at about 4.30 p.m. According to this witness, the
pillion rider was wearing a cap. Applicant-Baccused
Gurucharansingh is identifed in CCTV footage by another
witness at page nos.47 and 49 and the same clothes, as
described on the person of the pillion rider of the motorcycle,
came to be recovered from accused-Bapplicant Gurucharansingh.
Witness at page no.49 has stated about the pistol in possession
of accused-Bapplicant Gurucharansingh and he was threatened by
him at the point of gun. Even as per the statement of witness at
page no.50, the applicant has made reki of the area surrounding
the spot of incident prior to the incident. Prima facie, there is
evidence, including involvement of accused-Bapplicant
Gurucharansingh in the commission of crime. In view of the
{44}
ba85020.odt
same, mainly on the ground of ballistic report, I am not inclined
to give beneft to the accused-Bapplicant Gurucharansingh.
39 Considering the entire aspects of the case, I do not
think that any of the applicants have made out a case for grant
of bail. There are serious allegations against all of them. Prima
facie, there is a strong case against each of the applicants
indicating their involvement in the commission of crime. There is
strong possibility that after release on bail they will indulge in or
commit similar offence.
40 Hence, the following order:
(i) All these four Bail Applications bearing Nos. (i)
850/2020, (ii) 1010/20, (iii) 895/2020 and (iv) 905/2020, are
hereby rejected.
(V.K.JADHAV)
JUDGE
adb
