Bombay High Court
Lahu Janardhan Mane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2022
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
25-ba-1038-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1038 OF 2021
Lahu Janardhan Mane ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
----
Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil a/w Ms.Saili Dhuru for the Applicant.
Mr.Y.Y. Dabke, APP for the Respondent -State.
Mr.Ratandip S. Bhandare, PSI Bhuinj Police Station.
Digitally signed ----
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH
SANTOSH
KAMBLE CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
KAMBLE Date: 2022.02.11
11:35:16 +0530
DATE : 10 FEBRUARY 2022
(Through Video Conferencing)
P.C.
. By this Application, the Applicant-Lahu Mane
(Accused No.7) is seeking bail. The Applicant along with 10
others has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under
Section 307, 326, 143, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code,
Section 3, 5/25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2) and
3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act,
(MCOC Act) arising of the Crime No.44 of 2019 registered with
Bhuinj Police Station, District-Satara.
2. The Applicant was arrested on 10 July 2019 and he is
in jail since then.
N.S. Kamble page 1 of 6
25-ba-1038-2021
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. With the
assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have gone
through the record and in particular the order dated 24 February
2021 passed by this Court (Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) in Criminal Bail
Application No.297 of 2020, by which the co-accused Akshay
Jalindar Hargude (Accused No.4) has been released on bail.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant has sought
parity with the co-accused Akshay. It is pointed out that the role
attributed to the Applicant, is similar to the co-accused Akshay.
It is pointed out that at present there are no criminal antecedents
to the discredit of the Applicant and there is no specific role
attributed of any assault of the injured by the Applicant.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the Applicant had alighted from the car along with
gang leader Rohidas @ Bapu Chorghe. There is a CDR record
showing that the Applicant was in contact with the other
members of the organized crime syndicate.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kavitha
Lankesh V/s. State of Karnataka and Others 1, in order to submit
that a member of the gang can also subsequently join the same
1
N.S. Kamble page 2 of 6
25-ba-1038-2021
and it is not necessary that he has criminal antecedents in respect
of the previous organized crime, if any.
7. I have considered the submissions made. It appears
that the incident had happened in the night on 25 March 2019 at
about 1.00 a.m. The complaint in this case was lodged by
Pandurang Pawar who was working with Anewadi Toll Plaza. He
stated that a car bearing No. MH-12-NJ-302 passed through Toll
Plaza without paying toll. The car was stopped little ahead.
However, the driver refused to pay the toll claiming that he was
partner of the Khed-Shivapur Toll Plaza. He stated that driver
and other occupants of the car started quarreling with the
informant and abused him. In the meantime they contacted
somebody telephonically, after which within 5 to 10 minutes two
Fortuner cars came there. There were four to five persons who
got down. The informant has identified one of them namely
Rohidas @ Bapu Chorghe who according to the prosecution is a
gang leader of the syndicate. The passengers in the Swift car
informed Rohidas @ Bapu Chorghe that they were assaulted. It
is at this point of time that Rohidas @ Bapu Chorghe took out a
pistol and fired at the informant who started to flee from the spot.
In the meantime Mr.Vishal Raje who was with the first informant
fell down. It is Vishal Raje who is injured in this case.
N.S. Kamble page 3 of 6
25-ba-1038-2021
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is
clear that there is no specific role or any overtact or an assault
attributed to the Applicant or Vishal Raje or any other person
accompanying the informant. Thus, except the presence of the
Applicant on the spot which is not seriously disputed there is no
overtact attributed of the Applicant taking part in the actual
assault. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the
Applicant. Insofar as the Criminal antecedents are concerned, the
learned counsel for the Applicant pointed out page No.575 of the
compilation which shows that out of the four cases (including the
present case), the prosecution has filed a report under Section 169
of Cr.P.C., in one case, thereby discharging the Applicant and in
two cases he has been acquitted. Thus, the present case is the
only case stated to be against the Applicant. In that view of the
matter, the learned counsel for the Applicant is right that the
Applicant as on today has no criminal antecedents to his
discredit.
10. In my considered view, the Applicant is similarly
situated to that of Mr.Akshay Hargude (Accused No.4) who has
been granted bail.
11. In Kavitha Lankesh there was a challenge to the
approval granted under Section 23(4) of the Karnataka Control
N.S. Kamble page 4 of 6
25-ba-1038-2021
of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 this is what is held in paragraph
27 of the judgment.
"However, if the role of the offender is merely that of
a facilitor or of an abettor as referred to in Section
3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5), the requirement of named
person being involved in more than two chargesheets
registered against him in the past is nor relevant.
Regardless of that, he can be proceeded under the
2000 Act, if the material collected by the
Investigating Agency reveals that he had nexus with
the accused who is a member of the organized crime
syndicate or such nexus is related to the offence in
the nature of organized crime. Thus, he need not be
a person who had direct role in the commission of an
organized crime as such."
It can thus clearly be seen that if there is material
collected by the Investigating Agency which reveals that
particular accused had nexus with the other accused who is
member of the organized crime syndicate or such nexus is related
to the offence in the nature of organized crime, then he need not
be a person who had direct role in the commission of the
organized crime as such.
12. Coming to the present case prima facie it is not
shown that the incident was premeditated or it was the Applicant
who had called Rohidas @ Bapu Chorghe or any of the members
of the organized crime syndicate on the spot. Thus prima facie
there is no material to show that the Applicant had nexus with
the organized crime syndicate.
N.S. Kamble page 5 of 6
25-ba-1038-2021
13. In the result the following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) The Applicant be released on bail in C.R.
No.44 of 2019 registered at Bhuinji Police Station,
District-Satara, furnishing a PR bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one
or two solvent sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned
police station every fortnight for a period of one year
from today and he shall attend the trial on every date.
(iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the
evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner.
(iv) The Application stands disposed of accordingly.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
N.S. Kamble page 6 of 6
