Bombay High Court
Rahul Bapu Dongere vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 January, 2024
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2024:BHC-AS:3685
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1519 OF 2023
Rahul Bapu Dongere ....APPLICANT
V/S
The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT
Adv. Glady Pereira for the Applicant.
Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent - State.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2024
P.C.:
1. This Application is for bail in C.R. No. I-52 of 2018 registered
with Ulhasnagar Police Station for the offences punishable u/s.
364(A), 385, 386, 387, 341, 120(B), 201 of the Indian Penal Code,
1986, u/s. 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and u/s. 37(1), 135 of the
Mumbai Police Act, 1951 and u/s. 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of
the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as "MCOC Act").
2. The prosecution case, in brief, can be stated as under:
3. Naresh Ramnani, the first informant is a businessman. Dipak
Khiyani, accused and brother-in-law of the first informant had
informed the co-accused Ramesh Anand Punjabi that the financial
akn 1
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:38:55 :::
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
position of the first informant was very sound and if extortion was
demanded, the first informant would pay the same. The co-
accused - Ramesh Panjabi apprised the said fact to the co-accused
Vikki @ Vikrant Prakash Jadhav, the alleged gang leader. The later
in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy hatched a plan to abduct
the first informant for ransom. The Applicant and co-accused
Saeed Khan, Irfan Shaikh, Santosh Tihile were stated to be the
members of the organized crime syndicate, of which the accused
Vikrant Jadhav was the gang leader.
4. In pursuance to the said conspiracy, on 14 th March, 2018 at
about 10.15 pm. while the first informant was on his way to home
on Avenger motorcycle, a WagonR car came across him. The first
informant took a turn and proceeded ahead. The first informant
was accosted by two persons, who were riding a motorcycle. They
abused him. While the first informant tried to reason with them,
WagonR car came there. Those two motorcyclists allegedly
pushed the first informant into the said WagonR car. The accused
Irfan Shaikh was at wheel of the said car. Vikrant Jadhav and
Saeed Khan were in the said vehicle. The co-accused Vikrant
Jadhav demanded ransom of rupees One Crore by pointing a
revolver on the head of the first informant. The accused Saeed
akn 2
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:38:55 :::
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
Khan also threatened to kill the first informant by brandishing
knife. The first informant was compelled to make a telephone call
to his friend and ask him to come near the gate of the first
informant's housing society alongwith cash amount of rupees
Twenty Five Lakhs.
5. When the first informant and the co-accused reached near
the corner of the society, the police party swung in action and one
of the persons Saeed Khan, who was accompanying the first
informant was apprehended.
6. Eventually the Applicant and co-accused - Irfan Shaikh and
Vikrant Jadhav were apprehended at Navsari Toll Plaza alongwith
a fire arm and thus Crime No. 110 of 2018 was registered against
the Applicant and co-accused for the offence punishable u/s. 25 of
the Arms Act, 1959. The Applicant came to be arrested in the
instant crime by obtaining production warrant on 20 th March,
2018.
7. The investigation further revealed that the offences were
committed by the organized crime syndicate, of which the
Applicant was a member and co-accused Vikrant Jadhav, a gang
leader. Thus, post sanction, the offence punishable under MCOC
akn 3
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:38:55 :::
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
Act were applied. During the Course of the investigation, the
Applicant was identified by the first informant in the TI parade.
The co-accused Saeed Khan made a confession before the
competent authority, which came to be recorded u/s. 18 of the
MCOC Act.
8. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant had no role in the alleged occurrence. The Applicant has
been falsely roped in. In none of the offences, the Applicant was
impleaded as a member alongwith the co-accused - Vikrant Jadhav
before the registration of the instant offence. Subsequent to the
registration of the instance offence, the Applicant was shown as
Accused in two of the crimes. In C.R. No. 110 of 2018 registered
with Navsari police station, the Applicant alongwith co-accused
came to be duly acquitted. According to learned Counsel for the
Applicant, the Applicant has been in custody since 27 th March,
2018. Thus, this long period of incarceration in itself constitutes a
justifiable ground to set the Applicant at liberty. It was further
submitted that having regard to the long period of incarceration,
this Court has released co-accused Santosh Tihile in Bail
Application No. 1562 of 2023.
9. The prosecution resisted the prayer for the bail. An Affidavit-
akn 4
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:38:55 :::
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
in-Reply came to be filed on behalf of the prosecution.
10. Learned APP submitted that the role of the Applicant is
distinct from that of the co-accused - Santosh Tihile, who was
ordered to be released on bail. The Applicant has been specifically
identified by the first informant. Moreover, the Applicant has been
shown as co-accused alongwith Vikrant Jadhav, the gang leader, in
few of the crimes. Therefore, the Applicant does not deserve to be
released on bail.
11. I have carefully perused the report u/s. 173 of the Code and
the documents annexed with it.
12. Prima facie, it appears that the prosecution has improved
the version qua the role of the Applicant. From the perusal of the
First Information Report it becomes evident that on 15 th March,
2018 the first informant reported that he was accosted by two
persons riding one motorcycle. Those two persons had raked up
quarrel with him, abused him and thereafter forcibly pushed him
inside the WagonR Car. It appears that post the arrest of the
Applicant, a further statement came to be recorded on 30 th May,
2018 to the effect that there were two motorcycles and the
Applicant was riding another motorcycle.
akn 5
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:38:55 :::
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
13. The aforesaid claim of the first informant, it seems, is not
prima facie borne out by narration of the events in the FIR. The
tenor of the allegations was that initially the WagonR Car crossed
the first informant, and thus the first informant took a different
direction, he was chased by two riders on a motorcycle, they
raked up quarrel and after arrival of the WagonR car those two
motorcyclist pushed him inside the said car. The first informant
did not disclose about another motorcycle and 3 rd motorcycle
rider. In the aforesaid view of the matter, prima facie, even
identification of the Applicant in TI parade without any specific
role having been attributed to the Applicant in FIR does not seem
to advance the case of the prosecution to the extent desired by
the learned APP.
14. Secondly, I find substance in the submissions of learned
Counsel for the Applicant that the implication of the Applicant as a
member of the organized crime syndicate of which accused -
Vikrant Jadhav is stated to be the gang leader is a matter, which
requires consideration.
15. It would be suffice to note that three cases are shown to
have been be registered against the Applicant alongwith Accused
akn 6
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:38:55 :::
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
no. 1-Vikrant Jadhav. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted
that each of the three CRs was registered after the alleged
occurrence. The CR No. 55 of 2018 for the offences punishable
u/s. 386, 448 r/w. 34 of IPC in which Vikrant Jadhav, Irfan Shaikh
and Saeed Khan were shown, as accused apart from the Applicant,
came to be registered on 31 st March, 2018. The alleged incident
had occurred in the month of December, 2017. Secondly, the
Crime No. 40 of 2018 also came to be registered at Ulhasnagar
police station for offences punishable u/s 384, 387, 12(b) r/w 34 of
IPC on 31th March, 2018 in respect of an incident which had
allegedly occurred on 9th December, 2017. The 3rd CR, being,
Crime No. 110 of 2018 was registered on 21 st March, 2018, based
on the alleged occurrence. In the said prosecution, the Applicant
and the co-accused came to be acquitted by the judgment and
order dated 3rd March, 2023.
16. The fact remains that before the commission of the alleged
offences in question, the Applicant was not shown as accused in
any of the cases registered alongwith co-accused no. 1 - Vikrant
Jadhav or any of the co-accused either jointly or independently.
Thus, there is substance in the submission made on behalf of the
Applicant that the implication of the Applicant in those three
akn 7
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:38:55 :::
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
cases, subsequent to subject crime, could be to justify the
invocation of the provisions contained in MCOC Act.
17. At this juncture, the fact that this Court has exercised
discretion in favour of the co-accused - Santosh Tihile assumes
significance. The role attributed to the said co-accused, as noted
above, is that of forcing the first informant to board the WagonR
Car. The FIR, prima facie, does not indicate that the Applicant was
present at the time the first informant was allegedly pushed into
WagonR Car. In the circumstances, I find it difficult to accede to
the submission made on behalf of the prosecution that the role of
the Applicant stands on greater footing. On the contrary, in view
of the prima facie omission to state about the 3rd motorcycle, the
Applicant's case stands on a better footing. Thus, the twin
conditions mentioned in Section 21 of the MCOC Act can be said to
have been fulfilled.
18. In the aforesaid view of the matter and having regard to the
fact that the Applicant has been in custody since 28 th March, 2018,
the Applicant deserves to be released on bail, both on merits and
on account of long incarceration.
19. Hence, the following order:
akn 8
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:38:55 :::
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
ORDER
(i) Application stands allowed.
(ii) The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No. I-52 of
2018, registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station on
furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
(c) The applicant shall attend the Ulhasnagar Police Station
once in a month i.e. on the first Monday of every month in
between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.
(d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The
applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(e) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his
contact number and residential address to the Investigating
Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any
change.
(f) Except for attending the trial and for the purpose of
reporting to the Investigating Ofcer, the applicant shall not
enter Thane District after being released on bail, till the trial
3..BA.1519.2023.doc
concludes.
(g) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.
(h) The applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without the permission of the trial Court.
Application stands disposed.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
