Bombay High Court
Chirag Mahesh Loke vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2022
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
57.ba.1264-22.doc
PMB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1264 OF 2022
PRADNYA
PRADNYA MAKARAND
MAKARAND BHOGALE
BHOGALE Date:
2022.09.08
Chirag Mahesh Loke ..Applicant
20:52:52
+0530
vs.
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
------------
Mr. Prashant M. Patil for applicant.
Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for State.
Mr. Gajanan Rathod, ACP, Turbhe Division Navi Mumbai
present.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2022.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
APP for the State. The Investigating Officer is present.
2. This is a second application for bail filed by the
applicant in this Court. On 01.10.2021 while disposing of
the first bail application No.62 of 2020, the following order
was passed :-
"Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. After
arguing the matter for some time, learned Counsel for
the applicant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw
the application as considering the fact that the offence
1
57.ba.1264-22.doc
in respect of which he sought bail is registered in the
year 2013, this Court expressed that trial could be
expedited. Accordingly, the trial is expedited. In the
event, the trial does not commence within a period of
6 months from today, liberty to file a fresh bail
application is kept open.
2. Bail Application is allowed to be withdrawn with
the aforesaid liberty."
3. In the submission of learned counsel for the applicant,
as the trial is not progressing, the second application for
bail is filed. It is the submission on behalf of the applicant
that the applicant was arrested on 29.10.2013 and he is
under incarceration almost for a period of 8 years and 9
months. In his submission the period of incarceration is too
long and therefore, the applicant deserve to be released on
bail. The offence with which the applicant is charged which
is in respect of C.R. No.368 of 2013 registered with the
Nerul Police Station, District Thane, punishable under
Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereafter "MCOC", for short)
and under Section 307, 392, 353, 333 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (hereafter "IPC" for short) and under
Section 37(1), 135 of the Arms Act. At the relevant time
2
57.ba.1264-22.doc
when the offence was committed, the applicant was 28
years of age.
4. The case of the prosecution in the FIR is in respect of
the incident which took place on 29.12.2013. It is alleged
that the applicant who is a co-accused No.2 is a part of a
gang involved in chain snatching of which the accused No.1-
Stefen Das Swami is the gang leader. It is alleged that after
the chain snatching incident, the accused tried to escape.
The accused were chased by the policemen. The accused
No.1 thereupon assaulted a policeman with a knife as a
result of which the policeman suffered injuries on his chin.
The applicant (accused No.2) is alleged to have instigated
the accused No.1 to assault the policeman.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention
to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Satendar Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another in Miscellaneous Application
No.1849 of 2020 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of
2021 to support his submission that the applicant be
released on bail.
3
57.ba.1264-22.doc
6. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the
prosecution indicating the commonality so as to attract the
stringent provisions of MCOC Act. Learned APP vehemently
submitted that the present application should be dismissed.
According to him, it is only on 01.10.2021 that this Court
had allowed the applicant to withdraw the first bail
application. According to him, the trial has commenced.
Learned APP relied upon the Roznama to indicate the
default on the part of the applicant's advocate in proceeding
ahead with the trial. It is his submission that delay is
attributable only to the applicant. He therefore submits that
having regard to the object of enacting stringent provisions
under MCOC Act, this is not a case for grant of bail.
7. There is definitely some substance in the contention of
learned APP that the applicant has on some occasions been
responsible for delaying the trial. It is material to note that
there are as many as 37 witnesses to be examined. In the
affidavit-in-reply filed, it is stated that the prosecution will
not examine all witnesses and try to finish the trial as early
as possible. However, considering the number of witnesses
4
57.ba.1264-22.doc
to be examined and stage at which the trial presently is, the
trial is not expected to conclude soon.
8. So far as the incident in question is concerned, the
role attributed to the applicant is that after the chain
snatching incident, the applicant instigated the accused
No.1 to assault the policeman with the knife when the
policeman tried to apprehend the accused. The commonality
of the offences alleged against the present applicant qua
the accused No.1 is in respect of as many as 5 C.R's. In
respect of C.R. No.160 of 2011 under Section 379 read with
34 of IPC; C.R. No.165 of 2011 under Section 392, 297,
506(2) read with 34 of IPC and Section 37 (1), 135 of
Bombay Police Act, 1951; C.R. No.420 of 2011 under
Section 379 read with 34 of IPC are concerned, the
applicant has been convicted. It is the submission of
learned counsel for the applicant that he has already
undergone the sentence the applicant is in custody since
29.12.2013. The other two offences are C.R. No.424 of
2013 under Section 379 read with 34 of IPC and C.R.
No.236 of 2013 under Section 392 read with 34 of IPC of
5
57.ba.1264-22.doc
the Vashi Police Station and Nerul Police Station,
respectively, which are pending trial. Even in respect of the
present offence there is commonality.
9. No doubt the provisions of MCOC Act are very
stringent. However, taking an over all view of the matter,
the role of the applicant in the present incident and mainly
the fact that the applicant is under long incarceration for
more than 8 years and 9 months compels me to take a view
in favour of the applicant. The principle that bail is the rule
and jail is the exception has been well recognised through
the repetitive pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
10. Taking an over all view of the matter, the bail
application is allowed on the following terms :-
ORDER
(i) The applicant be released on bail in connection
with C.R. No.368 of 2013 registered with the Nerul
Police Station for offences punishable under Section
3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999 and under Section 307,
392, 353, 333 read with 34 of the IPC and under
Section 37(1), 135 of the Arms Act on executing PR
57.ba.1264-22.doc
Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or more
solvent sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- for a temporary period of 6
weeks.
(iii) The applicant to report to the Police Sub
Inspector of the Nerul Police Station once in a week
between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on the first Saturday
of the month till the conclusion of the trial.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly attend the trial on
the date of hearing unless exempted by the Court.
(v) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence
or threaten the witnesses.
(vi) The bail application stands disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
