Bombay High Court
Pradip S/O Arun Padwal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 January, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:1406
Gokhale 1 of 8 33-aba-3094-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3094 OF 2022
Pradip Arun Padwal ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
______
Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for Applicant.
Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for State/Respondent.
______
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 10 JANUARY 2024
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No.960 of 2021 registered at Chakan Police Station, on
09.08.2021, under sections 395, 397, 387 and 341 of the Indian
Penal Code, under sections 3, 25, 4 and 27 of the Arms Act, under
sections 37 and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and under
sections 3 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Subsequently, Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'MCOC Act') were
applied by granting permission U/s.23(1)(a) of the said Act vide
the order dated 17.11.2021. The investigation was carried out and
2 of 8 33-aba-3094-22
the charge-sheet was filed with the sanction order U/s.23(2) of the
said Act dated 03.02.2022. The applicant is still not arrested and
has preferred this anticipatory bail application.
2. Heard Shri. Ashok Saraogi, learned counsel for the
applicant and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State.
3. The F.I.R. is lodged by the first informant on
09.08.2021. He has stated that, he was having a small pan
shop/stall. He had given it on rent to his friend. He was knowing
the accused Santosh Manjre and Sainath Raut. According to him,
they were committed the offences and used to extort the money
from various stall owners. But because of their terror nobody used
to make complaints before the police. About two months prior to
lodging of F.I.R. on 09.08.2021, the informant was told by one of
his friends that the accused Santosh was planning to commit
murder of that friend. Accused Santosh and Sainath were
demanding Rs.1000/- per month as extortion but the informant
used to refuse to pay that money.
4. On 08.08.2021, at about 8.00p.m. the informant was
3 of 8 33-aba-3094-22
at Savardari phata and was talking with his friends 'JP' and 'SB'
(the identity of the witnesses is not mentioned to protect their
interest). The accused came there in a four wheeler. There were
about 10 accused. Santosh and Sainath were amongst them.
Santosh was having pistol and a sickle. Sainath was having a
sickle. The other three unknown persons were having wooden
sticks. Santosh aimed pistol at the informant. He tried to run away.
The others caught him. The three persons having wooden sticks
gave blows to the informant. His friends JP and SB came to save
him, but they were also assaulted by the accused. Santosh
removed gold chain from JP and Sainath removed chain from SB.
Then they went away from the spot. On this basis the F.I.R. is
lodged.
5. The informant gave his supplementary statement on
09.08.2021 itself. In that statement, he gave the names of seven
other accused including the present applicant. According to him,
those accused had come there on two wheelers. Some of them
were carrying the sickle and the wooden sticks. All of them caught
hold of the informant and then the accused Santosh, Aakash and
4 of 8 33-aba-3094-22
Narayan assaulted him with wooden sticks. His friends were
assaulted by Santosh and Sainath with the sickles. The informant
stated that, while lodging the F.I.R. he was scared and, therefore,
names of those accused were not mentioned.
6. The investigation was carried out and the statements
of various witnesses were recorded. There are more than 10 eye
witnesses whose statements are recorded during the investigation.
All these statements are recorded on 09.08.2021 itself and all of
them have stated about the presence of the present applicant along
with the other accused. All these witnesses have stated that the
applicant had come to the spot with the main accused Santosh and
Sainath when the incident had taken place. Their statements are
consistent. The statements of injured eye witnesses SB and JP are
also consistent. Both of them have named the present applicant as
he had come to the spot with other accused. There are injury
certificates regarding the injuries suffered by the informant and his
friends. Those injuries show that the incident as narrated by the
eye witnesses had in fact taken place.
5 of 8 33-aba-3094-22
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, he is
falsely implicated. His name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. He is
subsequently mentioned in the supplementary statement of the
first informant. The applicant is resident of the same locality and
he is in business of laundry. Therefore, he was knowing the other
people in the locality, but he was not a member of any gang. There
is no other antecedents against him. On the other hand, the first
informant has many cases against him. The F.I.R. mentions names
of only two persons. Subsequently, the names of other accused are
introduced. There is no specific role attributed to the present
applicant. Though, at some place the informant had tried to state
that the applicant was carrying a sickle, but this information was
told to him by others. There is no statement of any witness who
had actually seen the applicant carrying the sickle. The applicant is
willing to co-operate with the investigation. His custodial
interrogation is not necessary.
8. Learned APP opposed this application. She submitted
that the offence is under section 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the MCOC
Act and, therefore, there is bar U/s.21(3) of the said Act for grant
6 of 8 33-aba-3094-22
of relief U/s.438 of the Cr.p.c. She submitted that the requirement
for invoking the provisions of MCOC Act are that there has to be
more than one charge-sheets involving the offence punishable for
more than three years of which the cognizance is taken by the
competent courts. It is not necessary that such offence should be
registered against a particular individual. In this case there are
more than one charge-sheets within the preceding 10 years. There
are seven such offences against the accused Santosh, five such
offences against Vitthal Pikle, two offences against Akash Shelke.
The list of those offences are mentioned at page 284 at Exhibit-G
of the affidavit in reply filed by the learned APP. Thus, according to
her, the requirements of the MCOC Act are satisfied. She submitted
that the applicant was a member of the gang. The applicant had
come at the spot with others and he was a member of that
unlawful assembly. She submitted that, there are statements of the
eye witnesses showing that he had come to the spot along with
others. The offence was collective effort by all the members of the
gang. Therefore, considering the bar U/s.21(3) of the said Act, this
application may not be allowed.
7 of 8 33-aba-3094-22
9. I have considered these submissions. As is mentioned
earlier, there are more than 10 eye witnesses and all of them have
given their statements immediately on 09.08.2021 itself. All of
them have consistently stated that the applicant had come to the
spot along with all the other accused. After that the informant and
his friends were assaulted and the gold chains were forcibly taken
from the informant's friends. The offences of extortion and robbery
are made out from the material available in the charge-sheet. The
orders passed U/s.23(1) and 23(2) of the MCOC Act show that
they are passed by the competent authorities and the provisions of
the MCOC Act were invoked following the due procedure of law.
Though, there is no other offence registered against the applicant,
however, since the other members as mentioned earlier had such
offences registered against them of which the cognizance was
taken by the competent courts, the requirements of the provisions
of the MCOC Act are satisfied. A reference can be made to the
Judgment in the case of Kavitha Lankesh Versus State of Karnataka
and others1 in support of this proposition.
1 (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 753
8 of 8 33-aba-3094-22
10. Considering this discussion, it is clear that the offence
involves provisions of the MCOC Act and, therefore, there is direct
bar U/s.21(3) of the said Act for grant of anticipatory bail order.
With a result, no relief can be granted in this application.
11. The application is dismissed.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
