Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Through Assistant ... vs Mohd Shakil Mohd Ali And 3 Others on 25 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7308
1 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 111 OF 2024
State of Maharashtra
Through Assistant Commissioner of
Police Kotwali Division, Nagpur. APPLICANT
Versus
1. Mohd. Shakil Mohd. Ali,
Aged 25 Years,
R/o. Bajeriya Chowk, Dist. Nagpur.
2. Mohd. Rizwan @ Tedi Hasan Ansari,
Aged 25 Years,
R/o. Lodhipura, Behind Lal School,
Dist. Nagpur.
3. Ritik Rajkumar Gaur,
Aged 26 Years.
R/o. Bajeriya Chowk, Dist. Nagpur.
4. Faizan Khan @ Raj Kalya S/o Abdul
Rahid Khan,
Aged 20 Years,
R/o. Mirza Galli, Khadan,
Dist. Nagpur. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. M.J. Khan, APP for the Applicant/State.
Mr. S.S. Ali, Advocate a/w Mr. Y.J. Sheikh, Advocate for the
Non-applicant No.4.
-----------------------------------------------
2 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 25th JULY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Despite the service of notice and execution of the
Bailable Warrant, the Non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3 failed to appear
before this Court.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by the consent of learned APP for the Applicant/State and
learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.4.
3. The present Application is filed by the State seeking
cancellation of bail granted to the present Non-applicant Nos. 2
to 4 in connection with Crime No.144/2023 registered under
Sections 386, 387, 504, 506(2) r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short "IPC"). The crime was registered against
the present Non-applicants on the basis of the report lodged by
Tahir Hussain Mohd. Salim on an allegation that on 16.07.2019
at around 5.30. p.m, when he was sitting in Raja Restaurant and
Bhojnalaya, the present Non-applicants came there holding
swords in their hands and threatened him and forcefully
3 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
obtained the amount of Rs.3,000/- and he immediately lodged
the report vide Crime No.352/2019 under Sections 395, 452,
294 and 427 of IPC alongwith Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act
and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Subsequent to
the said incident, on 17.04.2023 at around 08.30. p.m., when
he was sitting in his hotel, the present Non-applicants again
came to his hotel and forcefully extorted the money i.e.
Rs. 5,000/- from him by threatening him and insisted him to
close the hotel. On the basis of the said report Police have
registered the crime against the present Non-applicants.
4. After registration of the crime, the Non-applicants
approached to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for
grant of bail. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur has
considered the application for grant of bail and they were
released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- each
with one solvent surety in the like amount. The condition
imposed on them is that they shall attend the Court at least
once in a month/three months till the conclusion of the trial and
also directed that if they commit breach of any of the condition
or misuse the liberty the prosecution shall be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail. The Non-applicant No.4 also
4 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
approached to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for
grant of bail and the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.1,
Nagpur granted bail by order dated 17.05.2023, wherein also
the condition was imposed that he shall attend the Court at
least once in a month/three months till the conclusion of the
trial, failing which he shall be called upon to pay the penalty
amount specified in the bail bonds. He was also directed to
attend the concerned Police Station once in a week on every
Saturday without fail.
5. Now, the present Application is filed by the State on
the ground that after releasing these Non-applicants on bail they
have misused the liberty and committed the similar type of
offence in respect of which Crime No. 406/2023 was registered
under Sections 394, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. The Crime
No. 406/2023 was registered on the basis of a report lodged by
Akash Nandkishor Shukla, wherein it is alleged that the present
Non-applicants approached to him and forcefully snatched his
golden chain as well as the cash amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and
threatened him and left the place. Another Crime No. 603/2023
was also registered under Section 294, 506(2), 323 r/w 34 of
IPC and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. Thus, the
5 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
contention of the State is that after releasing the said
Non-applicants on bail they misused the liberty, and therefore,
the Investigating Officer has sent the proposal to the Superior
Officers considering the continuous involvement of the present
Non-applicants in the illegal activities for invoking the
provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,
1999 (for short "the MCOC Act") and while granting approval
under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act, the Superior
Authority of the Investigating Agency i.e. the Additional
Commissioner of Police North Region Nagpur City had
considered and has gone through the proposal and documents
submitted in support of the proposal by the Police Inspector,
Police Station Ganeshpeth, Nagpur for addition of Sections 3(1)
(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 4 of the MCOC Act with the Crime
No. 144/2023 of Police Station Ganeshpeth for the offences
punishable under Sections 386, 387, 504, 506(B) r/w Section
34 of IPC. The sanctioning Authority has considered that it has
gone through the papers on the basis of record and evidence
with respect to the offences more than one charge-sheet has
been filed against them in which offences having prescribed
punishment of 3 years or more have been considered and
6 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
cognizance has been taken by the Competent Authority.
According to the record it seems that ultimate intention of the
accused persons is to gain pecuniary benefit establishing
supremacy in the locality and other advantage by committing
such serious offences. The preventive actions taken against
them have failed to produce them and on recording the
satisfaction that there is a crime syndicate and enough material
evidence and records to give prior approval for investigation
under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 4 of the
MCOC Act, the approval was granted to investigate the matter
to the Investigation Officer by invoking the provisions of the
MCOC Act, and therefore, the provisions of the MCOC Act are
invoked and the application was filed by the State for
cancellation of bail before the District Judge-1 and Additional
Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The learned District Judge-1, after
hearing both the sides rejected the application of the State and
hence this Application by invoking Section 439(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has been filed.
6. Heard learned APP for the Applicant/State. He
reiterated the said contention and submitted that the
Application is filed mainly on two grounds that the
7 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
Non-applicants have misused the liberty which was granted to
them and other ground raised is the Application is the special
provision under the Special Act i.e. MCOC Act. He also invited
my attention towards Crime Chart, wherein in all 16 offences
are registered against the Non-applicant No.4/Faizan Khan @
Raj Kalya S/o Abdul Rahid Khan, there are in all 10 offences are
registered against the Non-applicant No.3/Ritik Rajkumar Gaur,
there are in all 6 offences are registered against the
Non-applicant No.2/Mohd. Rizwan @ Tedi Hasan Ansari and
there are in all 11 offences are registered against the
Non-applicant No.1/Mohd. Shakil Mohd. Ali.
7. He further invited my attention towards the fact that
most of the offences are similar in nature i.e. under Sections
395, 452, 294, 427 of IPC which are committed for the
pecuniary gain. Some offences are registered under Sections
385, 387, 341 of IPC, which are also committed for the
pecuniary gain. He also submitted that considering the criteria
which is required that more than one crime the charge-sheet is
already filed against the present Non-applicants their
involvement are continuously in the illegal activities for the
pecuniary gain, the Authority has granted approval to
8 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
investigate the matter under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act,
and therefore, the investigation has to be carried out. Unless the
Non-applicants are taken into custody the investigation
regarding their unlawful and illegal activities cannot be carried
out, and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have
considered this aspect while considering the application filed by
the State but the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the same
and erroneously rejected the application.
8. In support of his contention he placed reliance on
the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Application
(APL) No. 7/2016, Vijendra Molchand Kuril Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr., decided on 12.09.2017 , and submitted
that in the similar facts and circumstances this Court has
considered the application of the State for cancellation of bail
and cancelled the bail. He submitted that, as the provisions of
the special enactment Act applied against the present
Non-applicants, and therefore, the investigation is to be carried
out so as to ascertain the involvement of the present
Non-applicants in the offences which are committed by them by
way of organized crime syndicate by forming a gang, and
therefore, pressed for cancellation of bail.
9 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
9. Learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.4 has
denied the said contentions and submitted that there was no
such condition imposed as to the liberty granted to the
Non-applicant No.4. He submitted that, no such condition or no
such liberty was granted to the State to apply for cancellation of
bail, and therefore, the contention of the State that as he is
involved in various offences and after he is released on bail his
liberty is to be cancelled and bail deserves to be rejected.
10. On going through the entire investigation papers
and the facts of the case it reveals that there is no dispute to the
fact that several offences are registered against the present
Non-applicants and most of the offences are registered showing
that they have formed the unlawful assembly having common
object, they have committed the offences like dacoity and
extortion. Two offences are registered against the Non-applicant
No.1/Mohd. Shakil Mohd. Ali under Sections 394, 452, 294,
427 and 385, 387, 441 which sufficiently shows that these
offences are committed by him for pecuniary gain. Against the
Non-applicant No.2/Mohd. Rizwan @ Tedi Hasan Ansari also
two offences are registered which shows that two offences vide
Crime Nos. 192/2015, 158/2021 and 144/2023 are registered
10 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
alleging that he has extorted the amount from various
businessman. Thus, these offences are committed for pecuniary
gain. The Non-applicant No.3/Ritik Rajkumar Gaur is also
involved in the offences punishable under Sections like 385,
386, 387 of IPC, the Crime Nos. 144/2023, 334/2023 and
122/2021 are registered under Sections 385, 386, 387, 341,
504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Against the Non-applicant
No.4/Faizan Khan @ Raj Kalya S/o Abdul Rahid Khan there are
in all 16 offences registered against him and out of them Crime
Nos. 273/2016, 352/2019, 372/2021 and 144/2023 are the
offences which are registered in the nature of pecuniary gain.
These offences are committed by these Non-applicants for the
pecuniary gain. Thus, considering the Crime Chart it reveals
that the involvement of the present Non-applicants are
continuously in the illegal activities which are committed for the
pecuniary gain.
11. After considering the grounds raised in the
Application by the State it reveals that after they are released on
bail in Crime No. 144/2023, they have misused the liberty and
their involvement reveals in the subsequent offence in Crime
Nos.105/2023, 406/2023 and 603/2023. Thus, the involvement
11 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
of the present Non-applicants is continuously apparent from the
said Crime Chart.
12. After hearing learned APP for the State and learned
Counsel for the Non-applicant No. 4, the issue that once the bail
is granted for the offences punishable under the "ordinarily law"
i.e. under the Indian Penal Code and subsequently, the
provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the MCOC Act, are added and
applied, whether the bail earlier granted can be cancelled or
not, is not in res integra in view of the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Sarang Arvind Goswamy Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 774.
13. In Sarang Arvind Goswamy's case, accused Sarang
was arrested in connection with Crime No.212/2004 for the
offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently,
he was released on bail. Subsequent to his release on bail, the
provisions of special enactment, namely MCOC Act, were
invoked against said Sarang. After such invocation, an
application was moved by the prosecution for cancellation of
bail on the assertion that as the provisions of special enactment
have been applied, earlier bail cannot be continued and the
12 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
same is required to be cancelled in view of the stringent
provisions of Section 21 of the MCOC Act.
14. The Sessions Court at Pune cancelled the bail
granted earlier in favour of accused Sarang that gave rise filing
of Criminal Application No.2129/2005 by Sarang before this
Court and this Court, after considering the entire law on the
said issue, found that the bail, which was granted earlier in
favour of applicant Sarang, was only in respect of the offences
punishable under the relevant Sections of the Indian Penal
Code. However, subsequently, the stringent provisions of the
MCOC Act were applied. Therefore, the order was upheld
cancelling the bail of Sarang.
15. In the present case also, at the time when the
Non-applicants were released on bail, the conditions were
imposed that they should not misuse the liberty and liberty was
granted to the State to approach the Court for cancellation of
bail, as far as the Non-applicant No.4 is concerned, this
condition was not imposed while granting bail. It is the implied
condition that the Non-applicant No.4 shall not indulge in the
similar type of activities if he is released on bail and shall not
13 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
misuse the liberty granted to him.
16. The investigation was continued in the earlier
offence and during the investigation, the involvement of the
present Non-applicants in continuous illegal activities by
forming a gang was revealed, and therefore, he applied for the
approval and the approval was granted by the Additional
Commissioner of Police, North Region Nagpur City. While
granting the approval, the Additional Commissioner of Police,
North Region Nagpur City, has considered the Crime Chart and
the nature of the crime and by observing that on his satisfaction,
by granting an approval to investigate the matter by applying
the provisions of the MCOC Act and accordingly the approval
was granted by the Competent Authority.
17. In my view, the prosecution has rightly applied for
cancellation of bail by approaching to the Court by moving an
application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on assertion that the provisions of the MCOC Act
have been applied against the present Non-applicants. The
ground that the Non-applicants have misused the liberty is also
made out by the State. As a consequence of which, the bail
14 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
granted in favour of the Non-applicants, relating to the offences
under the Indian Penal Code, will be of no avail. In view of
invocation of the provisions of the special enactment, the
prosecution was having a right to take the Non-applicants into
custody in relation to the newly registered offences under the
MCOC Act and as observed by this Court in Sarang Arvind
Goswamy's case cited supra, the Non-applicants can be released
on bail only if the Non-applicants were to satisfy rigours of the
provisions of the special enactment.
18. In view of the provisions of the MCOC Act, being
made against the present Non-applicants, in my view, learned
Judge of the Court below has committed an error by rejecting
the application, and therefore, the application of the State for
cancelling the bail deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. The Application is allowed.
ii. The bail granted to the present Non-applicant Nos. 1
to 4 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court
No.1, Nagpur by orders dated 24.04.2023 and
17.05.2023 are hereby cancelled.
15 965.APPLN.111-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
iii. Issue Non Bailable Warrants (N.B.W.) against the
Non-applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
iv. The Non-applicant No.3, is already behind bars. The
Investigating Officer is at liberty to take him into
custody by following due process of law.
19. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
20. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
( URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/07/2025 19:39:42
