Bombay High Court
Yuvraj @ Abhi Mohan Mahadik vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 September, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
(33)-BA-1156-21.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1156 OF 2021
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2022.09.28
10:07:28
+0530 Yuvraj @ Abhi Mohan Mahadik ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/by Jayant Bardeskar, for the
Applicant.
Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2022
P.C.
1. The provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized
Crime Act, 1999 were invoked against the applicant based on the
five offences which reads thus :-
v- iksyhl Bk.ks XkqUgk jft-ua- o dye vkjksihps ukao ikfgts ln;fLFkrh
ua- o iRrk vlysys
vkjksih
1 tquk jktokMk [email protected]] Hkk-na-la- lqjt g.kear 4 vkjksih iksyhl
dye 364¼v½] 365] lk[kjs oxSjs 7 vVd riklkoj
386] 387] 326] 323] gks.ksoj
504] 506] 34 lg izyafcr
lkodkjh vf/kfu;e
2014 ps dye 39] 42]
45 lg Hkkjrh; 'kL¥
vf/kfu;e 1959 ps
dye 3¼1½] 25
2 jktkjkeiqjh [email protected]] vaeyh vfHkftr fujad dksVZ isaMhax
inkFkZ fojks/kh dk;nk egkMhd oxSjs
BGP. 1 of 5
(33)-BA-1156-21.doc.
3 tquk jktokMk [email protected]] Hkk-na-la-d- vfHkftr fujad dksVZ isaMhax
420 egkMhd
4 tquk jktokMk [email protected]] Hkk-na-la-d- vfHkftr fujad dksVZ isaMhax
384] 506] 34 egkMhd oxSjs
5 tquk jktokMk [email protected]] Hkk-na-la-d- vfHkftr fujad dksVZ isaMhax
336] 323] 366] 143] egkMhd oxSjs
147] 148] 149] 504
2. Of the aforesaid offences, it is claimed that offence
No.191 of 2019 punishable under Section 364A, 365, 386, 387,
326, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 39, 42, 45 of the Money
Lending Act and Sections 3(1) and 25 of the Indian Arms Act was
with the members of the crime syndicate. Mr. A. P. Mundargi,
learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant by inviting
attention of this Court to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in
the matter of Mohd. Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 538, would urge that
invoking provisions of MCOCA in this eventuality is not justified.
According to him, other four offences which are relied on for
invoking provisions of MCOCA are based on the stale offences i.e.
2007 and 2004. He would urge that offence being Crime No.290 of
2018 under the NDPS was not committed by the applicant along
with other members of the syndicate. As such, he would urge that
applicant's detention under the provisions of MCOCA has to be
termed as illegal, as the MCOCA ought not to have been invoked
against the applicant for want of pendency of two or more offences
committed as a member of the syndicate. He would draw support
BGP. 2 of 5
(33)-BA-1156-21.doc.
from the following observations made by the Apex Court in the
above referred judgment :-
"Undisputedly, the perusal of the Chart would reveal that
only one offence, i.e., FIR No. 64 of 2021 would show that
it has been committed by seven accused out of which two
are the members of the syndicate. In respect of offences at
Serial Nos.1 to 4 in the chart, no members of the syndicate
are arrayed as accused.
We are of the prima facie view that for invoking the
provisions of the GCTOC Act, the following conditions will
have to be fulfilled:
(i) that such an activity should be prohibited by law for
the time being in force;
(ii) that such an activity is a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment of three years or more;
(iii) that such an activity is undertaken either singly or
jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or
on behalf of such syndicate;
(iv) that in respect of such an activity more than one
charge-sheet must have been filed before a competent
Court; and
(v) that the charge-sheet must have been filed within a
preceding period of ten years; and
(vi) that the Courts have taken cognizance of such
offences.
Undisputedly, in the present case only one charge-sheet
BGP. 3 of 5
(33)-BA-1156-21.doc.
was filed in respect of an activity which can be said to have
been undertaken by the petitioner/applicant as a member
of an organised crime syndicate on behalf of such
syndicate."
3. Learned APP would urge that the fact remains that the
applicant is a member of organized crime syndicate and has
committed an offence as a member of such syndicate being Crime
No.191 of 2019 which can be inferred from record. According to
her, what is required is involvement of the applicant in an offence
which is committed by him as a member of syndicate and there has
to be more than one charge-sheet against the syndicate member.
4. I have appreciated the said submissions.
5. From the factual matrix of the present case, against the
applicant only one offence being No.191 of 2019 which is
substantial offence in the same crime came to be registered as a
member of organized crime syndicate. Rest of the offences were
allegedly committed by the applicant in an independent capacity. In
the aforesaid background, rightly so pointed out by Mr. A. P.
Mundargi, case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid
observations made by the Apex Court. Singular instance of Offence
No.191 of 2019 will not qualify the claim of the prosecution to
invoke provisions of MCOCA against the applicant.
6. In that view of the matter, case for grant of bail in the
BGP. 4 of 5
(33)-BA-1156-21.doc.
crime registered under the MCOCA is made out.
7. As such, applicant is directed to be released on bail on
executing PR bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two local sureties in
the like amount.
8. Applicant shall neither influence the witnesses in any
manner nor tamper with the evidence.
9. Applicant shall remain outside the jurisdiction of the
Police Station till the trial is concluded.
10. The application as such stands allowed in above terms.
11. Applicant is at liberty to move for grant of regular bail
before the Trial Court, which shall be decided without being
influenced by the present order.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 5 of 5
