Bombay High Court
Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma vs Naitonal Investigating Agency ... on 23 January, 2023
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere, R. N. Laddha
Digitally
signed by
SHAGUFTA Q
SHAGUFTA PATHAN
Q PATHAN Date:
2023.01.23 APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
15:59:00
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2022
Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma,
Age : 59, Occu : Retired,
Plot No. 601, Bhagwan Bhavan, JB Nagar,
Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 059 ...Appellant/
Accused No. 10
Versus
1. National Investigating Agency,
7th Floor, MTNL, Telephone Exchange
Building, Pedder Road, Cumballa Hill,
Mumbai - 400 026
2. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
Mr. Aabad H. Ponda, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Subhash Jadhav,
Mr. Chandansingh Shekhawat, Mr. Dilip Kumar Rawat,
Mr. Yashovardhan Deshmukh and Mr. Prasanna Kumar i/b Mr. Waqar
Nasir Pathan for the Appellant
Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w Mr. Sandesh
Dadasaheb Patil, Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. Chintan Shah and Ms.
Savita Sadananda for the Respondent No.1-NIA
Mr. J. P. Yagnik, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2-State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16.12.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.01.2023
SQ Pathan 1/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
1 In view of not before order passed by Justice A. S.
Gadkari vide order dated 21.09.2022, the present appeal is listed
before this Bench.
2 By this appeal, preferred under Section 21 of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (`the NIA Act'), the
appellant (A-10) has impugned the order dated 16.02.2022
passed by the learned Special Court (NIA), Greater Mumbai,
rejecting his application for bail and as such seeks his enlargement
on bail in connection with NIA RC 01/2021/NIA/MUM (NIA
Special Case No. 1090/2021), for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 and 403 of the Indian Penal
Code (`IPC'), Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 18 and
20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004.
SQ Pathan 2/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Relevant Facts :
3 A few facts as are necessary to decide the appeal are
as under :
3.1 On 25.02.2021, in the wee hours, a Mahindra
Scorpio vehicle was found parked on Carmichael Road, near
Antilia Building i.e. near the residence of a prominent
businessman. On 25.02.2021 itself, the police of the Gamdevi
Police Station found 20 gelatin sticks and a note in the said car,
threatening a prominent industrialist and his wife. Pursuant
thereto, the Gamdevi Police lodged an FIR, which was registered
vide C.R. No. 35/2021 under Sections 286, 465, 473, 506(2) and
120B of the IPC and Section 4(a)(b)(i) of the Explosive
Substances Act, against unknown persons.
3.2 The said C.R. was transferred to the Crime
Intelligence Unit, Crime Branch, Mumbai (`the CIU') and the case
SQ Pathan 3/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
came to be re-registered as C.R. No. 40/2021. The investigation
of the said case was assigned to Sachin Waze (A-1), the then API,
CIU, Crime Branch, Mumbai, for investigation. During the course
of investigation, it was learnt that the Scorpio vehicle which was
found, had a fake number plate and that the actual number of the
vehicle was MH-02-AY-2815. In respect of the said Scorpio
vehicle, a separate C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 47/2021 was registered with
Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai, by Mansukh Hiren (deceased)
on 18.02.2021 alleging theft of his vehicle i.e. for an offence
punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. According to Mansukh
Hiren (deceased), his vehicle i.e. Scorpio vehicle was stolen on
17.02.2021, by unknown person.
3.3 The investigation of the said C.R. i.e. C.R. No.
47/2021 registered with the Vikhroli Police Station was also
transferred to CIU, Crime Branch, Mumbai and the said C.R. was
re-registered as C.R. No. 41/2021. The investigation of the said
case was also assigned to Sachin Waze (A-1).
SQ Pathan 4/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
3.4 On 01.03.2021 and 02.03.2021, Mansukh Hiren
(deceased) was summoned by the CIU, Crime Branch, pursuant to
which, Mansukh Hiren attended the CIU Office on 02.03.2021
and 03.03.2021.
3.5 On 04.03.2021, Mansukh Hiren left his house to
meet one police officer named Tawde, after which he did not
return home. Pursuant thereto, on the next day, i.e. on
05.03.2021, a missing person complaint was filed at the Naupada
Police Station, Thane, by Mansukh Hiren's son-Meet Hiren. The
said complaint was registered vide Missing Person Report
No. 16/2021.
3.6 On 05.03.2021, Mansukh Hiren's dead body was
found by Mumbra Police in the creek area of Retibunder.
Pursuant thereto, an Accidental Death Report No. 39/2021 under
Section 174 of the Cr.P.C was registered by the Mumbra Police
Station. During the course of investigation by the Mumbra Police,
SQ Pathan 5/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Mansukh Hiren's widow-Vimla Hiren, in her written complaint
before the ATS, Thane Unit, alleged foul play and expressed her
suspicion against Sachin Waze.
3.7 On 06.03.2021, the Government of Maharashtra
issued an order transferring the cases relating to placing of
explosive laden Scorpio SUV, theft of Scorpio vehicle and the
ADR case of Mansukh Hiren, to the Anti Terrorist Squad (`ATS'),
Maharashtra for further investigation.
3.8 On 07.03.2021, the ATS, Maharashtra converted the
ADR No. 39/2021 into an offence of murder and re-registered
the case as C.R. No. 12/2021, alleging offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 34, 120-B of the IPC, as against unknown
persons, for the murder of Mansukh Hiren. The cases relating to
placing of explosive laden Scorpio SUV and theft of Scorpio
vehicle were re-registered by the ATS, Maharashtra, as C.R. Nos.
10/2021 and 11/2021 respectively.
SQ Pathan 6/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
3.9 On 08.03.2021, 20.03.2021 and 21.03.2021, as per
the directions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India, the NIA took over the investigation of the aforesaid cases
and directed the NIA to suo-motu register a case and take up the
investigation. Accordingly, the case was re-registered by NIA, as
NIA RC 01/2021/NIA/MUM on 08.03.2021 and the original case
papers and articles were handed over by the ATS, Maharashtra to
NIA, BO-Mumbai, on 10.03.2021.
3.10 During the course of investigation, it was found that
Sachin Waze (A-1), alongwith other co-accused, including the
appellant, had committed heinous and serious offences attracting
the provisions of the UAPA and hence, Sections 16, 18 and 20 of
the UAPA, were invoked.
3.11 During the course of investigation, several persons
involved in the commission of the offence were arrested. As far as
the appellant is concerned, he was arrested on 17.06.2021. On
SQ Pathan 7/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
completion of investigation, the NIA filed charge-sheet on
03.09.2021 as against 10 accused i.e. (1) Sachin Waze, (2) Naresh
Gor, (3) Vinayak Shinde, (4) Riyazuddin Kazi, (5) Sunil Mane, (6)
Santosh Shelar, (7) Anand Jadhav, (8) Satish Mothkuri, (9)
Manish Soni and (10) Pradeep Sharma under various provisions
of the IPC, UAPA, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act. We
are informed that the NIA has also filed an application under
Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.
3.12 In the charge-sheet filed by the NIA, in paragraph 18
i.e. `18-CHARGES', the allegations against the appellant are set-
out in para 18.10. The said para reads as under :
"18.10 Offences committed by accused A-10
(Appellant-Pradeep Sharma):- He willingly and
intentionally entered into a well organized criminal
conspiracy for the execution of Murder of Mansukh
Hiran, which was a direct outcome of the terrorist act
committed by A-1 and others. He along with A-1 and
A-5 attended various meetings in CP office compound
for the execution of murder of Mansukh Hiran. As
the main conspirator, he hired A-6 and henchmen for
SQ Pathan 8/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
killing Mansukh Hiran by offering them huge amount
of money received by him from A-1. He directed A-6
to arrange benami SIM cards and mobile for
communication during the planning and execution of
murder of Mansukh Hiran. He, used one benami SIM
card & mobile phone given by A-6 (procured by A-9),
for the planning and execution of murder of Mansukh
Hiran. He received huge cash amount from A-1 for
executing the murder of Mansukh Hiran. After
murder of Mansukh Hiran, he directed A-6 to flee
from Mumbai to Nepal along with henchmen of A-6
to avoid getting arrested. Through A-6, he organized
the fleeing of A-9 from Mumbai to Dubai and
thereafter he arranged for stay of A-9 at Sai Leela
Grand Hotel, Andheri (East), Mumbai operated in
benami by him. Hence A-10 is to be charged under
the sections shown against his name in the table
below."
3.13 The sections alleged in the table qua the appellant are
in Para 18.12. The sections with which the appellant has been
charged are Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 and 403 of the IPC;
Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
SQ Pathan 9/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
3.14 As per the charge-sheet, the appellant had conspired
with Sachin Waze and others, to eliminate Mansukh Hiren.
3.15 We may note, that the charge-sheet, does not prima
facie disclose that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy of
planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. Presumably, hence,
the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act,
were not applied by the NIA against the appellant. Admittedly,
NIA has not obtained sanction to prosecute the appellant either
under the Arms Act or under the Explosive Substances Act. The
sanction orders are at page Nos. 68 and 70 of the charge-sheet
and the sanction is only against Sachin Waze under the said Acts,
and no other accused.
Submissions of Mr. Ponda :
4 Mr. Ponda, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
SQ Pathan 10/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
are contrary to the documents and statements of witnesses on
record. He further submitted that as seen from the charge-sheet
filed by the NIA, the appellant is not concerned with the Scorpio
vehicle laden with gelatin sticks and that the appellant's role
allegedly comes, post the incident i.e. in eliminating Mansukh
Hiren, according to the NIA. Learned senior counsel heavily
relied on the statement of Advocate K. H. Giri, to show the said
witness's assessment about Mansukh Hiren, when he met him on
02.03.2021 i.e. he found Mansukh Hiren to be a bold person
with no frustration of any kind on his face. Reliance was also
placed on the statements of witnesses to show contradictions in
the statements with respect to the presence of Sachin Waze at the
P.S. Foundation Office i.e. meeting with the appellant, when
Sachin Waze allegedly handed over a bag containing cash. He
further submitted that the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution do not satisfy the requirements as mandated by law
in a case relating to circumstantial evidence. He submitted that
there is no legal, cogent, admissible evidence to connect the
SQ Pathan 11/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
appellant with the murder of Mansukh Hiren. In this connection,
learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1 and
several other judgments enunciating the principles on
circumstantial evidence. He submitted that the circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution are not consistent with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and on the contrary, the
circumstances relied upon, are consistent with the innocence of
the appellant. He submitted that each of the circumstance relied
upon by the prosecution is not only contrary to the prosecution
evidence on record, but there is a reasonable explanation for each
of the circumstance.
Submissions of Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Additional
Solicitor General (`ASG') :
5 Learned ASG vehemently opposed the appeal. He
submitted that the circumstances on record clearly point to the
complicity of the appellant in the crime. He submitted that the
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
SQ Pathan 12/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
defence of the appellant cannot be looked into at this stage, while
considering his prayer for bail. He submitted that the appellant is
facing prosecution not only under the provisions of the IPC but
even under the UAPA. He submitted that the circumstances on
record clearly show that the appellant had conspired with Sachin
Waze and others to eliminate Mansukh Hiren. In support of the
said submission, learned ASG relied on several statements and
documents from the charge-sheet.
6 Both, learned senior counsel for the appellant and
learned ASG have tendered their written submissions and
compilations, during the course of arguments, which we have
taken on record.
Reasons :
7 Perused the papers with the assistance of the learned
counsel for the respective parties.
SQ Pathan 13/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
7.1 At the outset, we express some anguish in the manner
in which the NIA has investigated the charge of conspiracy of
parking of the Scorpio vehicle near the residence of a prominent
businessman and planting of gelatin sticks in the said vehicle, on
24/25.02.2021.
7.2 We may note, that during the course of the arguments,
we asked the learned ASG, as to with whom Sachin Waze had
entered into a conspiracy to plant gelatin sticks in the Scorpio
vehicle, considering that the charge against Sachin Waze is, that
he had entered into conspiracy to plant gelatin sticks in the
Scorpio vehicle `with others'. With whom? The charge-sheet is
silent. Hence, learned ASG took time. Though the charge-sheet
says Sachin Waze entered into a conspiracy `with others' to plant
gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle, the names of the co-
conspirators are curiously not spelt out.
7.3 On the next date of hearing, learned ASG, on
SQ Pathan 14/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
instructions, stated that Sachin Waze had entered into a
conspiracy on 17.02.2021 with the appellant even in the parking
and planting of gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. The said
submission came, for the first time, during the course of the
arguments, only when we questioned, as to with whom Sachin
Waze had conspired with. Atleast, prima facie, we do not find any
material from the NIA charge-sheet that the appellant was
involved in the parking and planting of the gelatin sticks in the
Scorpio vehicle. If this was the NIA's case, why then had they
remained silent and not disclosed the same in the charge-sheet, is
perplexing.
7.4 Learned ASG, to buttress the said submission of
conspiracy, relied on the CDRs of the appellant of 17.02.2021 i.e.
the date on which Mansukh Hiren had parked the vehicle at
Vikhroli. In support of the said submission, learned ASG made a
feeble attempt to show from the CDRs that the appellant was at
Masjid Bandar at 20:17 hrs., at which time, Sachin Waze was
SQ Pathan 15/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
also at Masjid Bandar and later, the appellant was at Vikhroli at
22:56 hrs., in the area, where Mansukh Hiren had parked his
Scorpio car.
7.5 It is pertinent to note, that it is the prosecution case,
that Sachin Waze wanted to plant gelatin sticks in a vehicle, and
for the said purpose, chose a Scorpio vehicle, belonging to
Mansukh Hiren; that on 17.02.2021, Sachin Waze asked
Mansukh Hiren to drive the Scorpio from Thane towards
Vikhroli and park the same on the service road near the flyover at
Airoli junction on the Eastern Express Highway; that Sachin Waze
asked Mansukh Hiren to handover keys of the said vehicle to him
near the CP Office compound; that Mansukh Hiren complied
with the same by parking his vehicle on the Eastern Express
Highway; that after parking the vehicle, Mansukh Hiren took an
Ola Cab to meet Sachin Waze, to handover the keys of the
Scorpio Car; that the Ola dropped Mansukh Hiren near G.P.O. at
around 20:10 hrs.; that after taking the car keys, Sachin Waze left
SQ Pathan 16/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
alongwith KW-1 towards Eastern Freeway; that at 21:50 hrs.,
KW-1 and Sachin Waze reached the spot, where the Scorpio was
parked and Sachin Waze directed KW-1 to open the car and
change the number plate of the said Scorpio vehicle and to take it
to Saket Colony (residence of Sachin Waze).
7.6 The CDRs of Sachin Waze relied upon by the learned
ASG show that Sachin Waze was present on 17.02.2021 at
Asmulka House, Narsi Natha Street, Near Masjid Railway
Station, Katha Bazar, Mumbai-400 009 from 18:37 hrs. to 20:16
hrs. and from there, left towards Crawford Market and reached
there at 20:45 hrs. The appellant's CDR relied upon shows that
the appellant on 17.02.2021, reached Dockyard Road, Mumbai-
400 010 at 20:10 hrs. and from there, travelled towards
P'Demello Road, Near BPT, Masjid Bandar (East), Mumbai at
20:25 till 20:36 hrs. It is the appellant's case that he had gone to
attend a wedding. He relied on a photo taken at the said
wedding. Prima facie, the CDRs of Sachin Waze and appellant do
SQ Pathan 17/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
not reveal that they were together either at Masjid Bandar or
Mazgaon, as contended by the learned ASG. We may note that
prima facie, except for the said CDRs, which were pointed out
for the first time during arguments, prosecution has not been able
to show that the appellant and Sachin Waze had met on
17.02.2021. Infact, KW-1 was with Sachin Waze on 17.02.2021.
His statement also does not reveal that they (Sachin Waze and the
appellant) met on that day. According to the learned ASG, the
timings of the CDRs, if perused, show that the appellant was in
the Vikhroli area from 21.10 hrs. till 23.45 hrs., where, the
vehicle was parked. The appellant's CDR shows that he was in
Vikhroli (West) during this period, whereas, the vehicle was
parked in Vikhroli (East). Although, learned ASG submitted that
there can be overlapping of areas, we are prima facie not satisfied
with the explanation. Be that as it may, why appellant went
there? Not known. No CDRs were also brought to our notice to
show that any calls were exchanged between Sachin Waze and
appellant on that day. Neither it is the prosecution case, that the
SQ Pathan 18/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
appellant was present at the spot near the car, when Sachin Waze
and KW-1 reached the spot, where the Scorpio was parked i.e.
Eastern Express Highway.
7.7 It appears that the NIA, after a detailed investigation,
had not charge-sheeted the appellant for the offence pertaining to
the Scorpio vehicle, which was laden with gelatin sticks. Prima
facie, we feel that this feeble attempt was made to connect the
appellant with Sachin Waze only when we questioned the NIA, as
to with whom Sachin Waze had conspired with, in planting of
gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. In a case of this magnitude,
prima facie, it is highly impossible that Sachin Waze himself
would be involved, without the help, assistance or may be,
guidance of some others. We may note, that it is the prosecution
case, that Sachin Waze had done a lot of planning in this regard,
when he planted gelatin sticks in a Scorpio vehicle near a
prominent businessman's residence i.e. he had booked a room in
Hotel Oberoi for 100 days; had paid in cash for booking of the
SQ Pathan 19/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
room in Hotel Oberoi; had given a fake Aadhar Card, etc. We,
prima facie, find that the NIA has not done investigation with
regard to the same i.e. with respect to the co-conspirators
involved in planting of gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle.
7.8 Infact, when we questioned the learned ASG, as to
who had planted the note threatening the businessman's family
and as to who was the author of the same, he submitted that it
was Sachin Waze. As far as the alleged telegram as well as the
alleged claim put up by Jaish-ul-Hind on the Telegram Channel is
concerned, when we questioned the learned ASG, he submitted
that again, it was Sachin Waze, who was the author of the same.
When questioned, whether there were any documents/statements
with respect to the same, the answer was in the negative.
7.9 At this stage, Mr. Ponda, learned senior counsel
appearing in the aforesaid appeal and Mr. Chaudhary appearing
in the connected appeal, submitted that for reasons best known,
SQ Pathan 20/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
NIA was trying to protect the higher-ups. Mr. Chaudhary
tendered two statements, which are part of the charge-sheet.
They submitted that for the reasons best known, the higher-ups
were being protected. They relied upon the statement of one
Ishaan Sinha (a resident of Ghaziabad), whose statement has been
recorded by the NIA. The said witness in his statement has stated
that he is a Cyber Security professional and has a firm by the
name Blacktronics and that he offers professional services to
various Intelligence and Investigation Agencies under the
Government of India and State Police Organizations. He has
stated that the NIA showed him one email dated 09.03.2021,
tagged `Confidential', sent by him to the Commissioner of Police
(`CP'), Mumbai and attachment thereof in two pages. He has
stated that he provided full details regarding the said
communication. According to the said witness, he has stated that
he had visited the office of CP, Mumbai on 09.03.2021, in
connection with the training program concluded by him in
January 2021 for Crime Branch, Mumbai and training for
SQ Pathan 21/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Additional CPs, Mumbai in the first week of February 2021. He
has stated that during the second meeting on 09.03.2021, he
mentioned to the then CP that the Telegram Channel "Jaish-ul-
Hind" on which a post had appeared on 27.02.2021 claiming
responsibility for the Antilia terror scare, has been resolved by the
Special Cell, Delhi Police, and that, the mobile phone number
linked with the said Telegram Channel was found to be used from
within the premises of Tihar Jail; and that as a Cyber Security
Expert, he too had been following a Telegram Channel with a
similar name, since the time a blast had occurred outside the
Israel Embassy in New Delhi on 29.01.2021. After sharing the
said information, he was asked by the CP, whether he could give
such a report in writing; that since the work was confidential and
was being done by the Special Cell, Delhi Police, he stated that it
would not be proper on his part to give any report in writing in
this regard. He has stated that the CP told him that it was a very
important matter and that he should be giving the said report and
that the CP told him that he would talk to the IG, NIA, in this
SQ Pathan 22/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
regard. He has stated that as per the insistence of the CP, he
prepared a report on his laptop computer, sitting in the CP office.
The said report was in one paragraph and was shown to the CP.
After going through the report, the CP asked him to insert the
Poster that had appeared on the Telegram Channel "Jaish-ul-
Hind" claiming responsibility for the Antilia terror scare. He was
also told by the CP that the IG, NIA, was expected shortly and
that he would like to show the said report to him. According to
the said witness, he accordingly modified the said report and
inserted the Poster that had appeared on the Telegram Channel
and mailed the said report to the official email of the said CP.
Thereafter, the CP asked him how much was to be paid for the
services rendered by him, to which, he replied that he was not
expecting any payment, to which, the CP expressed that he had
done excellent work and deserved payment for the services
rendered. Pursuant to which, the CP called his Personal Assistant
(`PA') and directed the PA to pay him Rs.3,00,000/-. He has
stated that when the PA left the chamber, the CP called the PA
SQ Pathan 23/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
back and directed the PA to pay him Rs. 5,00,000/-. He has
stated that he had told the CP that the amount was too much,
however, the CP insisted that he deserved the same for the
services rendered. He has stated that accordingly, he received
cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the PA of the CP, in his presence.
7.10 As far as the report given by him to the CP is
concerned, the said witness has further stated that he had fetched
the IP address linked with the Telegram Channel "Jaish-ul-Hind"
on 26.02.2021 at 15.28 hrs., whereas, the Poster claiming the
responsibility of the Antilia terror scare had appeared on
27.02.2021. He has further stated that he was asked as to why he
was following the Telegram Channel "Jaish-ul-Hind", a day prior
to the appearance of Poster claiming responsibility for the Antilia
terror scare, to which, he had given clarification that the
Telegram Channel "Jaish-ul-Hind" that was identified and
resolved by him was different from the one on which the Post had
appeared. He has further stated that the one resolved by him had
SQ Pathan 24/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
only 3-4 members and there was no Poster related to Antilia
terror scare on that Channel. He has further stated that the
Telegram Channel "Jaish-ul-Hind" on which the Poster appeared
was infact resolved by the Special Cell, Delhi Police and not by
him, however, when he shared his input with the Special Cell,
Delhi Police, it came to light that the IP address pertaining to
both Channels were found to be linked with the same virtual
number +191xxxxxxxx linked to TextNow App, which was
further resolved by the Special Cell, Delhi Police with TextNow
and found linked with Airtel number 931xxxxxxx, which was
found to be operated within the premises of Tihar Jail. He has
further stated that he was asked whether the report dated
09.03.2021 given by him to CP regarding resolving Telegram
Channel "Jaish-ul-Hind" was correct, to which, he has stated that
original report prepared by him was very short and did not
contain the Poster claiming responsibility for Antilia terror scare
and the report now shown to him was modified by him as per the
directions of the CP. He has further stated that he does not know
SQ Pathan 25/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
how the said report got leaked to the media, as, when he handed
over the report to the CP on 09.03.2021, he had conveyed to the
CP that the information was very confidential and that the
Special Cell, Delhi Police was still working on the input and that
he was shocked to see the details appearing in the newspaper the
next day and was very upset about the same.
7.11 The said statement of payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- is
corroborated by Joseph D'Silva, who looked after the personal
work of the CP. He has stated that CP called him and initially
asked him to give Rs. 3,00,000/- and thereafter, the CP asked him
to add another Rs. 2,00,000/- and accordingly, he gave
Rs. 5,00,000/- in a paper bag to Ishaan Sinha, a Cyber Expert.
He has stated that the said amount was withdrawn from the SS
Fund. Why such a huge payment was made to the said witness i.e.
Cyber Expert, what was the interest of the CP, is a grey area, for
which there are no answers.
SQ Pathan 26/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
7.12 Be that as it may, for the first time, after filing a
detailed investigation report, NIA is now trying to link the
appellant with the Scorpio vehicle (laden with gelatin sticks), that
too, during the course of the submissions, when the NIA was
questioned. We are afraid that the NIA has not done indepth
investigation with respect to the same i.e. as to with whom Sachin
Waze had conspired with, for parking the Scorpio vehicle laden
with gelatin sticks near a prominent businessman's residence. As
noted above, Sachin Waze could not have done it by himself.
There has to be two or more persons to attract the offence of
conspiracy. There are several questions, which are unanswered
by the NIA, with respect to the case pertaining to parking of the
Scorpio vehicle laden with gelatin sticks. We hope and trust, that
NIA, in right earnest, will investigate this aspect since further
investigation under Section 173(8) is pending.
7.13 Now coming to the circumstance relied upon by the
prosecution, as far as the appellant's role in the murder of
SQ Pathan 27/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Mansukh Hiren is concerned, the prosecution has relied on
several circumstances, which according to them, clearly point to
the complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime.
7.14 The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution
is, that the appellant met Sachin Waze on 28.02.2021 at Malabar
Hill Police Station for about 30-40 minutes and thereafter,
together they travelled in one car from Malabar Hill Police
Station to Worli Sea-face, where again they stood talking for
about 20-25 minutes. It is the prosecution case that the
appellant, a retired police officer, met Sachin Waze at the
Malabar Hill Police Station, though there was no reason for him
to be there. In this regard, learned ASG relied on the statements
of PSO Prasanjeet Sawdekar, working with the appellant to show
that the appellant and Sachin Waze met on 28.02.2021 for about
30-45 minutes at the Malabar Hill Police Station and thereafter,
the appellant and Sachin Waze travelled in one car, towards Worli
SQ Pathan 28/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Sea-face, where again they got down and started talking for about
20-25 minutes. The same is reiterated by the appellant's driver-
Ulhas Shirsole, and another PSO of the appellant, Vikas Bangar.
Mr. Ponda, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted
that the appellant met Sachin Waze for a reason; (i) that the Ex-
Home Minister of Maharashtra had called Sachin Waze in the last
week of February 2021 and had given him an ultimatum to
collect an amount of Rupees Hundred Crores from various bars,
restaurants and pubs, across Mumbai and had allegedly asked him
to hand over the extorted money within one week, which period
was expiring on 03.03.2021; (ii) that the Ex-Home Minister had
threatened Sachin Waze that if he failed to follow his direction,
he would take legal action against him by arresting him in a false
case and remove him from service; (iii) as Sachin Waze was afraid,
he met the appellant for the same. In this regard i.e with respect
to the meeting of Sachin Waze with Ex-Home Minister on
24.02.2021 and 27.02.2021, Mr. Ponda relied on the statements
of PC-Pandit Ramesh Banjara, PN-Rajendra Ganpath Jadhav and
SQ Pathan 29/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
API-Prakash Krishna Howal, so also the statements of KW-1
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C.
7.15 First and foremost, it is pertinent to note that the
meetings dated 24.02.2021 and 27.02.2021 are post the finding
of the Scorpio vehicle laden with gelatin sticks. Admittedly, none
of these witnesses were present in the meeting nor are they
alleged to have heard the conversation between Sachin Waze and
the Ex-Home Minister. Prima facie, the meeting with the Ex-
Home Minister cannot be said to be unusual, as Sachin Waze was
the Investigating Officer of an important case, at the relevant
time. At the highest, the statements relied upon by the learned
senior counsel show that Sachin Waze had visited the Home
Minister's residence. Admittedly, none of them have spoken
about the conversation that took place between Sachin Waze and
the Ex-Home Minister. This is the defence of the appellant,
which will have to be considered at the stage of trial and not at
the stage of bail. Thus, the defence of the appellant that he was
SQ Pathan 30/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
called by Sachin Waze to Malabar Hill Police Station, for
disclosing to him the threat given to him by the Ex-Home
Minister, cannot be considered, while considering the appellant's
plea for bail. It is the appellant's defence, to be tested at the time
of trial. According to KW-13, the appellant told him to inform
Sachin Waze that he should call the appellant, pursuant thereto,
Sachin Waze and the appellant met. The fact remains that the
appellant, a retired police officer had a closed-door meeting with
Sachin Waze at Malabar Hill Police Station and though he was
not concerned with any of the cases i.e. either pertaining to the
Scorpio vehicle laden with gelatin sticks or the missing vehicle of
Mansukh Hiren, they (appellant and Schin Waze) travelled
together in one car from Malabar Hill Police Station to Worli Sea-
face, where again they get down and were talking for about
20-25 minutes. The same has been stated by several witnesses
including KW-13, PSO Prasanjeet Sawdekar and others.
SQ Pathan 31/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
7.16 The second circumstance according to the prosecution
is, the visit of the appellant to the CIU Office, Mumbai on
02.03.2021, where the appellant and Sachin Waze met the CP,
Mumbai in his office and thereafter, the appellant and Sachin
Waze met separately in Sachin Waze's cabin, for about 10 minutes
and then left. According to the prosecution, the appellant, a
retired Police Officer, had no reason to visit the CP Office.
Learned ASG submitted that it is a matter of record that on the
same day, Mansukh Hiren was also present in the CP Office, and
Sunil Mane (A-5, a co-conspirator) was also present in the CP
Office. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the said day, the
appellant entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sachin Waze
and Sunil Mane for eliminating Manuskh Hiren. The statement of
PSO-Prasanjeet Sawdekar reveals that on 02.03.2021, he
accompanied the appellant to the CP Office at about 12:00 hrs;
that the appellant went to meet the CP; that after 15-20 minutes,
the appellant came down and went to CIU to meet Sachin Waze;
SQ Pathan 32/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
that he followed the appellant to the Crime Branch Building,
however, the appellant asked him to wait down; that after 10-15
minutes, the appellant came down with Sachin Waze. It is also
pertinent to note that the statement of ACP Alaknure reveals, that
when he visited the CP's Office to meet the DCP on 05.03.2021,
he had seen the appellant coming out of the CP's chamber. The
reason for the appellant, a retired police officer, to be in the CP
office including the CP's chamber, is not forthcoming. Prima
facie, the fact remains that the appellant was present in the CP
Office on 02.03.2021 and 05.03.2021, for albeit no plausible
reason. No plausible reason is also spelt out by the learned senior
counsel for the appellant for the presence of the appellant in the
CP Office.
7.17 Mr. Ponda learned senior counsel for the appellant
vehemently submitted that the question of doing away with
Mansukh Hiren would not arise, inasmuch as, the statement of
Advocate K.H. Giri would show the mental state of Mansukh
SQ Pathan 33/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Hiren i.e. he was not stressed, was composed and cooperative. It
is the case of the prosecution that meetings between Sachin Waze
and appellant were held on 28.02.2021 and 02.03.2021 to
eliminate Mansukh Hiren, as Mansukh Hiren was a weak link
and if arrested, he would expose Sachin Waze. According to
Mr. Ponda, the statement of Advocate K. H. Giri would show
that Mansukh Hiren had met him on 02.03.2021 and that he was
willing to cooperate with Sachin Waze and as per Sachin Waze's
advice, was ready to file a complaint for the harassment faced by
him from media and police with respect to his stolen car, and
which was subsequently found parked outside Antilia building,
laden with explosives. It is submitted that Advocate K. H. Giri's
statement would show that there was no enmity between
Mansukh Hiren and Sachin Waze as on 02.03.2021, and
Mansukh Hiren was fully cooperating and that he was a bold
person, with no frustration visible on his face. A perusal of
Advocate K. H. Giri's statement would show that on 02.03.2021,
at about 13:30 hrs., he got a call from Sachin Waze, requesting
SQ Pathan 34/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
him to advise and draft complaint of one of his friend Mansukh
Hiren. He was informed that the vehicle of Mansukh Hiren was
stolen from Eastern Express Highway and that Mansukh Hiren
was being harassed by the police and the media because the said
vehicle was found stationary near a prominent industrialist's
residence. As recommended by Sachin Waze, he drafted a
complaint of Mansukh Hiren, addressed to the Chief Minister of
Maharashtra, Home Minister, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai
and Thane. Advocate Giri has stated that Mansukh Hiren visited
his office at 3:00 p.m. and left his office at 5:00 p.m. and that
after reading the complaint, Mansukh Hiren was satisfied,
pursuant to which, he obtained his signature on the same and
asked him to deliver the same to the concerned authorities. He
has stated that after he spoke to Mansukh Hiren, he found
Mansukh Hiren to be a bold person with no frustration of any
kind on his face. He has stated that whilst giving the instructions,
Mansukh Hiren never took the name of NIA or any other
investigating agency other than the State Police.
SQ Pathan 35/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
7.18 Mr. Ponda, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that having regard to Advocate K. H. Giri's statement,
the question of appellant conniving with Sachin Waze did not
arise. This well could be Mr. Giri's perception about what he
perceived when he interacted with Mansukh Hiren. It could well
be, because Mansukh Hiren felt that Sachin Waze was trying to
help him, by giving a lawyer. It is pertinent to note, that the NIA,
during search of Sachin Waze's Office, seized one letter i.e. the
notice prepared by Advocate Giri. Advocate Giri, after perusing
the said seized letter, has in his statement stated that the contents
of the complaint letter drafted by him were edited by Sachin
Waze and as such, were not in the original draft. It appears that 7
paras of the said letter written by Advocate Giri were edited by
Sachin Waze. Advocate Giri has further stated that the said edited
paras were never stated by Mansukh Hiren.
7.19 Another circumstance alleged by the prosecution
against the appellant is that Sachin Waze had brought a bag
SQ Pathan 36/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
containing money in his car to the P.S. Foundation compound at
Andheri on 03.03.2021 and had handed over the same to the
appellant. The said P.S. Foundation is, admittedly, a foundation
run by the appellant. It is the prosecution case that the said bag
brought by Sachin Waze contained cash and was transferred by
Sachin Waze from his car to the appellant's car. According to the
prosecution, money was given to the appellant for executing the
murder of Mansukh Hiren. KW-13, in his statements recorded,
both under Sections 161 and 164, has stated that on 03.03.2021,
around 20:00 hrs. to 21:30 hrs., Sachin Waze had come to the
appellant's P.S. Foundation Office; that he saw the two talking on
the side; that Sachin Waze handed over one bag from the boot of
his SUV car to KW-13 to keep in appellant's car, saying that the
bag contained appellant's clothes; that while transferring the bag,
the zip of the bag being partially open, he saw bundles of Rs.
500/- notes in the said bag and found it heavier than a bag
containing clothes. KW-13 has stated in his statement that Sachin
Waze noticed that he had seen the bag and hence, had threatened
SQ Pathan 37/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
him with dire consequences if he opened his mouth. KW-13 has
further stated that when he disclosed the same (threat given by
Sachin Waze) to the appellant, the appellant told him not to take
it seriously, as Sachin Waze was in the habit of joking.
7.20 According to KW-13, Sachin Waze was present at P.S.
Foundation between 20:00 hrs. and 21:30 hrs. Another witness,
PSO-Prasanjeet Sawdekar has prima facie, corroborated the
statement of KW-13, that on 03.03.2021 at about 21:00/21:30
hrs., when he was waiting down at the P.S. Foundation Office,
Sachin Waze arrived there and met the appellant; that after
speaking with the appellant for about 5-10 minutes, Sachin Waze
opened the boot of his Prado vehicle and the appellant told KW-
13 to transfer a bag from Sachin Waze's vehicle; after keeping the
bag, Sachin Waze is stated to have left.
7.21 Although, much capital is made by the learned senior
counsel for the appellant, that the said witness had not disclosed
SQ Pathan 38/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
about threat given to KW-13/the zip being open, it is not
necessary to go into the same, inasmuch as, it would depend on
how far this witness was from KW-13. Suffice to state, that this
witness has corroborated KW-13 with regard to Sachin Waze
having come to P.S. Foundation to meet the appellant and that a
bag was transferred from Sachin Waze's car to the appellant's car.
According to Mr. Ponda, the said statements of KW-13 and
Prasanjeet Sawdekar, who corroborates KW-13, is contrary to the
statements of some other police officers as well as the CDR
records relied upon by the prosecution. He submitted that some
of the police officers i.e. PC-Sameer Gawkar and PC-Pankaj
Bhosle have stated that Sachin Waze was present in the CIU
office, Crawford Market on 03.03.2021 during the time, the
prosecution has alleged that he was at the P.S. Foundation at
Andheri. It is also submitted that the CDR records also do not
corroborate the timings mentioned by KW-13 and PSO Prasanjeet
Sawdekar, with respect to the presence of Sachin Waze at the P.S.
Foundation, Andheri. He submitted that the CDR records of
SQ Pathan 39/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Sachin Waze of 03.03.2021, relied upon by the prosecution, to
the contrary, show that Sachin Waze was at the CIU office,
Crawford Market at about 20:35 hrs.; at Malabar Hill at 20:47
hrs., and at 21:55 hrs. at Bandra Worli Sea Link, and near
Santacruz at 22:16 hrs. After Santacruz, comes Andheri, where
the P.S. Foundation Office is situated. It is the prosecution case
that after reaching Santacruz, Sachin Waze switched-off his
mobile, and hence there are no CDRs after that. No doubt, there
is some discrepancy with regard to the time, but what cannot be
lost sight of is, that there are categorical statements of the
witnesses i.e. KW-13 and Prasanjeet Sawdekar that they saw
Sachin Waze transferring one bag into the appellant's car and
that, one of the witness i.e. KW-13 has stated that the said bag
contained cash. What also cannot be lost sight of is, that the
incident had taken place on 03.03.2021, whereas, the statements
of witnesses were recorded on 12.08.2021 and 26.06.2021
respectively i.e. after about 3 months. Hence, 1 to 1½ hours,
here and there, prima facie, would not oust the prosecution case.
SQ Pathan 40/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Mr. Ponda also submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of
argument, that Sachin Waze gave a bag containing cash to the
appellant, the said cash was given as Sachin Waze apprehended
that he would be arrested at the behest of the Ex-Home Minister,
pursuant to the threats given by him, if the amount of Rupees
Hundred Crores was not collected and that the said amount was
given for getting him released on bail. This is the defence of the
appellant and cannot be looked into as this stage.
7.22 The next circumstance alleged by the prosecution is
that the appellant facilitated the escape of Manish Soni (A-9)
alongwith Santosh Shelar (A-6) to Nepal, to avoid arrest and
thereafter, helped Manish Soni (A-9) flee from Mumbai to Dubai,
through Santosh Shelar (A-6). Mr. Ponda submitted that a
perusal of the documents and statements would reveal that
Manish Soni's (A-9) tickets were not booked by the appellant but
were booked by Santosh Shelar's (A-6) daughter.
SQ Pathan 41/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
7.23 Mr. Ponda submitted that as far as the allegation that
the appellant facilitated the escape of Santosh Shelar (A-6) and
Manish Soni (A-9) from Mumbai to Nepal, after the murder of
Mansukh Hiren is concerned, there is not a single witness who
speaks about the role of the appellant in the commission of the
said act. He submitted that even as far as the allegation that the
appellant facilitated the escape of Manish Soni (A-9) from
Mumbai to Dubai, through Santosh Shelar (A-6) is concerned, the
statement of Santosh Shelar's daughter-Siddhi Shelar shows that
she had booked the tickets for Manish Soni (A-9) from Mumbai
to Dubai, at the instance of her father. In this context, learned
senior counsel relied on the statement of Siddhi Shelar, daughter
of Santosh Shelar (A-6).
7.24 We may note, that it does not appear to be the
prosecution case that the appellant booked any tickets facilitating
the escape of the co-accused. A perusal of the charge against the
appellant is that he directed Santosh Shelar to flee from Mumbai
SQ Pathan 42/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
to Nepal alongwith his henchmen and not that the appellant
booked the tickets. No doubt, the tickets were booked by Santosh
Shelar's daughter, however, what cannot be lost sight of, is, that
Santosh Shelar (A-6) was closely associated with the appellant and
there are CDRs to that effect. Although Mr. Ponda contended
that Santosh Shelar (A-6) was known to the appellant, as earlier,
he was his informer and as such, the said circumstance i.e. being
in touch with Santosh Shelar (A-6), cannot be said to be
incriminating, we are afraid that at this stage, we cannot accept
the said submission, considering the role of Santosh Shelar (A-6),
who was closely associated with the appellant in the commission
of the said crime. It is the prosecution case, that Santosh Shelar
(A-6) was one of the assailants, who smothered Mansukh Hiren
and disposed of his dead body alongwith other co-accused.
7.25 The next circumstance alleged by the prosecution is
that the appellant, on A-9-Manish Soni's return to Mumbai from
Dubai on 08.05.2021, got him (Manish Soni) quarantined in a
SQ Pathan 43/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
hotel called Sai Leela Grand at Andheri, operated in benami by
the appellant. According to the prosecution, the said Hotel
belonged to the appellant's wife and that she had leased out the
first and the second floors to Ravindranath Shardaprasad Singh
and Prakash Vithhal Poojari, who were running the said hotel,
under the name and style of Hotel Sai Leela Grand. Mr. Ponda,
submitted that the said circumstance cannot be said to be
incriminating. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted
that the said hotel was leased out in 2018 and that merely
because Manish Soni (A-9) stayed in the said hotel, cannot be an
incriminating circumstance against the appellant. He submitted
that admittedly, the said hotel was not run by the appellant nor
his wife. He submitted that the said hotel is registered with the
Mumbai International Airport and was included in the Airport
Quarantine Hotels, pursuant to which, the appellant was kept in
the said hotel. We may note, that during this period, whenever
passengers landed from abroad, they could choose the hotel
which was in the list of Quarantine Hotels, and hence, it is not as
SQ Pathan 44/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
if Manish Soni (A-9) was sent there by the Authorities. It was the
choice of the passengers. It is pertinent to note, that co-accused
Manish Soni, in his 164 statement, stated that when he reached
Mumbai, as per airport protocol, he had to stay in quarantine on
his own expenses for 7 days. Hence, he called Santosh Shelar,
who in turn, had given him the details of the hotel for quarantine,
for filing up the BMC Form.
7.26 A perusal of the statement of Ravindranath Singh
shows that on 09.05.2021, A-9 (Manish Soni) came to stay in his
hotel and that he had seen him on 11.05.2021, when Santosh
Shelar (A-6) came to meet Manish Soni (A-9) in the said hotel.
He has stated that Manish Soni (A-9) stayed in his hotel for about
7 days and that during the said stay, Santosh Shelar (A-6) had
come to the hotel to meet Manish Soni (A-9), two to three times.
He has stated that Santosh Shelar was pressurizing them to let
Manish Soni go home before the end of quarantine, however,
Manish Soni was permitted to leave only after his Covid RTPCR
SQ Pathan 45/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
test and end of his quarantine period. He has further stated that
when Manish Soni checked out of the hotel, he did not pay the
charges and when asked about it, he said that Santosh Shelar
(A-6) would pay the hotel charges.
7.27 Prakash Vitthal Poojari, in his statement has said that
he knows the appellant for about 15 years and Santosh Shelar for
about two years. He has stated that when he and his business
partner Ravindranath Singh were looking for a place for hotel,
their acquaintance Ajay Sharma, who is always with the appellant,
suggested to them the said place i.e. the first and second floor in
the Raylon Arcade Building, Kondiwada, R. K. Temple Road,
J. B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai-59, standing in the name of
Smt. Swikriti Pradeep Sharma, wife of the appellant. He has
stated that on 17.04.2018, Ravindranath Singh and he took on
rent the first and second floors of the Raylon Arcade Building
standing in the name of the appellant's wife for Rs. 1,13,000/- for
running a hotel. He has stated that their Hotel Sai Leela Grand
SQ Pathan 46/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
was registered with the Mumbai International Airport and was
also included in the list of Airport Quarantine Hotels. He has
stated that his partner Ravindranath Singh and he would
regularly sit on the Sofa near the hotel reception around
11:00 a.m. everyday, and hence, he knew who is coming to the
hotel. He has stated that on 09.05.2021, a person named
Manish Soni (A-9) came to stay in Sai Leela Grand Hotel. He
has further stated that Santosh Shelar had come to meet Manish
Soni in the hotel, on 11.05.2021. He has stated that Manish Soni
stayed in their hotel for about 7 days and that during those seven
days, Santosh Shelar had come to the hotel to meet Manish Soni,
two to three times. He has stated that Santosh Shelar pressurized
them to let Manish Soni go home before the end of his
quarantine period but their Hotel Manager released Manish Soni
only after doing RTPCR test and end of his quarantine period.
He further stated that when Manish Soni checked out of the
hotel, he did not pay the hotel rent. He has stated that when the
hotel manager asked him about the hotel rent, he said that
SQ Pathan 47/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Santosh Shelar will pay the hotel rent. He further stated that
when Santosh Shelar met him, he told him that he would pay
Manish Soni's hotel rent himself. He has stated that on
16.05.2021, Manish Soni left, without paying the hotel bill and
after that, neither Santosh Shelar nor Manish Soni paid the hotel
bill.
7.28 Co-accused -Manish Soni in his confessional statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, has stated how he knew
Santosh Shelar for 6 years; that Santosh Shelar asked him to
purchase one simple mobile phone and two activated new sim
cards on 01.03.2021, pursuant to which, he purchased and gave
him the same; how the incident of 04.03.2021-murder of
Mansukh Hiren took place; the role of Sanotsh Shelar and others
in the same; how he escaped to Nepal with Santosh Shelar; that
the trip was sponsored by Santosh Shelar; how Santosh Shelar
arranged his flight tickets to Dubai. Manish Soni in his confession
SQ Pathan 48/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
has further stated that when he returned to Mumbai, as per the
airport protocol, he was required to stay in quarantine on his
own expense for 7 days; hence, he called Santosh Shelar, who
gave him the details of the hotel for quarantine for filling up the
BMC form. He has stated that Santosh Shelar bore the expenses
of that hotel. According to Manish Soni, during his quarantine,
in the Hotel Sai Leela Grand, Santosh Shelar came to meet him
on 09.05.2021 and 11.05.2021. He has further stated that on
13.05.2021, when he was taking tea, the appellant came in his car
and asked him if Santosh Shelar had come there. As he replied in
the negative, the appellant left.
7.29 KW-13 in the 161 statement, has stated as under:
"I say that Raylon Arcade building has six floors.
The 1st to 4th Floor in the said building is owned by Sh.
Pradeep Sharma, and the same is registered in the name
of his wife Smt. Swikriti Sharma. The 4 th floor is used as
registered office of P.S. Foundation and the remaining
first and second floors are given on rent to Sh.Pujari and
SQ Pathan 49/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
Sh.Singh who run Hotel Sai Leela Grand from the said
premises. The said hotel is being used as a quarantine
facility for air passengers arriving at Mumbai
international airport. One person named Manish Soni
had stayed in the said hotel in the second week of May
2021 and __________ acquainted with Manish Soni
during the said period."
7.30 The statement of KW-13 reveals that Santosh Shelar
(A-6) was an influential person and was very close to the
appellant and a regular visitor of the P.S. Foundation and that
during Navratri celebrations, when banners of P.S. Foundation
were put up, they contained the photograph of Santosh Shelar.
KW-13 has further stated that Santosh Shelar has been a regular
contact person of the appellant and had helped the appellant
during the elections at Nalasopara by organizing manpower for
election rallies of the appellant. According to KW-13, the
appellant used to call Santosh Shelar through KW-13's phone
during the period 28.02.2021 to March 2021, which is exactly
SQ Pathan 50/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
the period when Mansukh Hiren was eliminated. KW-13's
statement also shows that Santosh Shelar was called by the
appellant to his office many times and that many times Santosh
Shelar was accompanied by another person Anand Jadhav (A-7).
7.31 The prosecution has also relied upon CDRs from
09.05.2021 to 22.06.2021 to show that the appellant and
Santosh Shelar were continuously in touch with each other, after
the murder of Mansukh Hiren. KW-13 has further stated that the
appellant would tell him what type of call to make whether
regular or WhatsApp, to Santosh Shelar (A-6), who allegedly
eliminated Mansukh Hiren with the help of other accused. He
has given the details as to on which phones and how calls have
been made by the appellant to Santosh Shelar. It is also pertinent
to note that Sanotsh Shelar had asked Manish Soni to purchase
one simple mobile phone and two activated new sim cards on
01.03.2021, which he purchased and handed over to Santosh
Shelar. One of the sim card was handed over by Santosh Shelar
SQ Pathan 51/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
to the appellant, which was used by the appellant to make calls to
Santosh Shelar. The explanations offered by the appellant are
prima facie his defences and will have to be tested during his trial.
8 Considering the material on record, the same prima
facie, points to the complicity of the appellant in the murder of
Mansukh Hiren. The possibility of the appellant, a retired Police
Officer, having clout, tampering with the witnesses, cannot be
ruled out. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant was
facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections
302, etc. in an encounter case. Although, the appellant was
acquitted from the said offences, after a full-fledged trial, an
appeal against acquittal of the said appellant has been filed by the
State of Maharashtra which has been admitted.
9 Considering all that is stated hereinabove, this is not a
fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail. Appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
SQ Pathan 52/53
APEAL-258-2022-J.doc
10 It is made clear that the observations made herein are
prima facie, only for the purpose of deciding the appellant's prayer for
bail and as such, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits,
in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this
judgment.
R. N. LADDHA, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
SQ Pathan 53/53
