Labour, R/o.Dhangarwadi, Bhokardan, Ta.Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. (As per charge sheet) v. The State of Maharashtra through P
Case Details
{1} BA 1273 OF 2021 F IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1273 OF 2021 1. 2. 3. . Kiran @ Janglya s/o. Ashok Jadhav Age: 19 years, Occu.: Education, R/o. Kharat-Mangrul, Ta.Ghansavangi, Dist.Jalna, At present r/o. Domrivasti, Velapur Ta.Malshiras, Dist.Solapur. Anna @ Tura s/o. Maroti Shinde Age: 35 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Velapur, Domrivasti, Tq.Malshiras, Dist.Solapur. Sanjay s/o. Tukaram Gaikwad Age: 35 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o.Dhangarwadi, Bhokardan, Ta.Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. (As per charge sheet) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through Police Inspector, Majalgaon City Police Station, Majalgaon. ..Applicants ..Respondent ... Advocate for Applicants : Shri Satish A. Gaikwad APP for Respondent : Shri S.B.Narwade ... CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 7th March, 2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 8th April, 2022 ORDER :- 1. Applicants have sought bail in connection with Crime No.88 {2} BA 1273 OF 2021 F of 2017 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station, Dist.Beed under Sections 392, 395, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (‘the MCOC Act’ for short). 2. The informant by the name of Sanjay Ramrao Ranjvan lodged the FIR on 14th September, 2017 alleging inter alia that in the intervening night of 13th September 2017 and 14th September, 2017, three unknown persons, who had masked their faces broke open his house and after threatening his father on the point of knife committed theft of gold ornaments worth Rs.1,68,000/- and cash amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. On the basis of this FIR lodged by the informant, aforesaid crime came to be registered against unknown persons. 3. During the course of investigation, it transpired that this offence was committed as a result of conspiracy among the accused persons including the present applicants. Therefore, offence under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. During the pendency of the charge-sheet, approval for invoking provisions of MCOC Act was obtained and provisions of MCOC Act were applied. {3} BA 1273 OF 2021 F 4. Heard Shri S.A.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri S.B.Narwade, learned APP for the respondent. 5. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no organized crime syndicate. There is no nexus between the offences committed earlier and the present crime. He submitted that no recovery is made from applicant No.1. He further submitted that applicant No.3 was earlier arrested in Crime No.40 of 2011 on 17th June, 2011. Applicant No.3 was arrested in the present crime on 27th September, 2017. Thereafter, he was arrested in Crime No.70 of 2017 on 3rd October, 2017 and he was arrested in Crime No.183 of 2017 on 5th October, 2017. He submitted that from applicant No.1 Kiran @ Janglya Ashok Jadhav recovery is made which is doubtful. He had sold gold to Goldsmith but it was not recovered in the same form as it was melted. Same is the case with applicant No.2 Anna @ Tura Maroti Shinde. Therefore, there is no prima-facie case in the case at hand. He submitted that there is no evidence for invoking provisions of the MCOC Act. 6.
Legal Reasoning
decision of this Court in the case of Subhash Mohan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra in Bail Application No.850 of 2020, dated 15th February, 2021. 9. In order to invoke provisions of the MCOC Act, there has to be unlawful activity by a crime syndicate or by a member of an organized crime syndicate in respect of which more than one {5} BA 1273 OF 2021 F charge-sheet is fled before the competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and the Court has taken cognizance of such offence. 10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be apposite to consider the relevant provisions of the MCOC Act. Section 2(d) defnes “continuing unlawful activity”, Section 2(e) defnes “organised crime” and Section 2(f) defnes “organised crime syndicate”. Section 2(d) reads as under: “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable ofence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge- sheets have been fled before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such ofence. Section 2(e) reads as under: “organised crime” means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefts, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency. {6} BA 1273 OF 2021 F Section 2(f) reads thus: “organised crime syndicate” means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime. 11. Thus for constituting unlawful assembly there has to be an activity prohibited by law, it must be a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more. The said activity prohibited by law must be undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge- sheets have been fled before a competent Court. These charge- sheets have to be fled within a period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence. 12. For constituting organised crime there has to be any continuing unlawful activity by an individual. Said activity must be committed singly or jointly either as a member of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such indicate. Such activity should include use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercive or other unlawful means. The said activity must have been taken with the object of gaining pecuniary benefts or for gaining undue economic advantage or {7} BA 1273 OF 2021 F other advantage for himself or any other person or for promoting insurgency. 13. In the case of Madan S/o. Ramkisan Gangwani (supra), the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : A.H.Joshi and R.C.Chavan, JJ.) held as under: “34. In Ranjitsingh's case the learned Single Judge observed that the defnitions, though intertwined in a cyclic order, are clear and unambiguous. Even the Apex Court in Bharat Shah's case (2008 AIR SCW 6431) observed that the defnitions were not vague and they defned the terms with clarity. It would, therefore, follow that each ingredient in the defnitions, or the alternative thereof provided by the defnitions themselves, would have to be proved. Viewed thus, for charging a person of organised crime or being a member of organised crime syndicate, it would be necessary to prove that the persons concerned have indulged in: (i) an activity, (ii) which is prohibited by law, (iii) which is a cognizable ofence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more, (iv) undertaken either singly or jointly, (v) as a member of organised crime syndicate i.e. acting as a syndicate or a gang, or on behalf of such syndicate. (vi) (a) in respect of similar activities (in the past) more than one charge sheets have been fled in competent court within the preceding period of ten years, (b) and the court has taken cognizance of such ofence. (vii) the activity is undertaken by : (a) violence, or (b) threat of violence, or intimidation or (c) coercion or (d) other unlawful means. {8} BA 1273 OF 2021 F (viii)(a) with the object of gaining pecuniary benefts or gaining undue or other advantage for himself or any other person, or (b) with the object of promoting insurgency.” 14. Thus, for invoking provisions of MCOC Act there must be continuing unlawful activity by an individual, the said activity must be committed singly or jointly either as a member of orgnised crime syndicate or on behalf of such indicate. Such activity must have been taken with the object of gaining pecuniary benefts or for gaining undue economic advantage or other advantage for himself or any other person or for promoting insurgency. 15. For fnding out whether there was continuing unlawful activity by an organised crime syndicate, record produced by the prosecution will have to be looked into. According to the prosecution, following offences have been committed by the organised crime syndicate of which applicant No.3 Sanjay Tukaram Gaikwad, according to the prosecution, is the gang leader : la?kVhr VksGhrhy vkjksihrkaps lkekbZd xqUgs v- dz- 1- iksyhl Bk.ks o xjua o dye lk[kj[ksMkZ ft-flan[ksMjktk] ft-cqy<k.kk vkjksihps ukao vVd rkjh[k dksVZ dsl uacj o 1- lat; rqdkjke xk;dokM] o; 34 o"ksZ] jk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk ¼VksGhizeq[k½ 17@06@2011 lKfLFkrh vkj-lh-lh-ua- 230@2011 fn-24@08@11 {9} BA 1273 OF 2021 F 2- 3- 4- 5- 40@2011 dye 341] 342] 394] 34 Hkk-n-oh- uok eksa<k ft-ijHk.kh 65@2011 dye 452] 324] 323] 504] 506] 34 Hkk-na-oh Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 20@2013 dye 399] 402] 34 Hkk-na-oh- Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 62@2013 dye 307] 323] 504] 34 Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM 35@2015 dye 452] 323] 504] 2- xqykc fijkth iokj] o; 29 o’ksZ] jk-cktkj lkoaxh] rk- [kqyrkckn] ft-vkSjaxkckn 1- v..kk ek:rh f’kans] o; 35 o"ksZ] jk-eqdqanokMh vkSjaxkckn] g-eq- Mksackjh oLrh osGkiqj rk-ekGf'kjl] ft-lksykiqj- 2- f'kok ÅQZ f'kokth ukxq f'kans] o; 27 o"ksZ] jk- fojxkao Bk.kk] rk- ft- tkyuk- 3- lat; ÅQZ vackth firjkt tk/ko] o; 20 o"ksZ] jk- dzkarhuxj] ft- ijHk.kh 1- lat; rqdkjke xk;dokM] o; 34 o"ksZ] jk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk ¼VksGhizeq[k½ 2- lat; ek:rh f'kans] o; 23 o"ksZ] jk- ukatkikVh] rk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk- 3- lat; fpekth tk/ko] jk- /kuxjokMh] Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk- 4- fnid jkek iokj] jk- ikjMxko] rk- ijrqj] ft- tkyuk- 5- xaxkjke vk..kk f'kans] o; 40 o"ksZ] jk- uktkaikVh] rk- Hkksdjnu] ft-tkyuk ¼e;r½ 1- lat; rqdkjke xk;dokM] o; 34 o"ksZ] jk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk ¼VksGhizeq[k½ 2- lat; ek:rh f'kans] o; 23 o"ksZ] jk- ukatkikVh] rk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk- 3- v..kk y{e.k iokj] o; 50 o"ksZ] jk- iq[kjktuxj] Hkksdjnu] ft-tkyuk- 4- jkek v..kk iokj] o; 21 o"ksZ] jk- iq[kjktuxj] Hkksdjnu] ft-tkyuk 1- mRre dk”khukFk xk;dokM o; 61 o"ksZ] jk- dslkiqjh] rk- ektyxko] ft-chM 2- lksukth mRre xk;dokM] o; 18 o"ksZ] jk-dslkiqjh dWEi] rk- 01@06@2011 iq-rk- 5@12@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 171@2012 fn-28@2@2012 iq-rk-18@11@17 26@11@2011 299 lhvkjihlh 299 lhvkjihlh 11@04@2013 10@03@2013 vkj-lh-lh-ua- 85@2013 fn-28@06@13 iq-rk-07@12@17 299 lhvkjihlh 299 lhvkjihlh 10@03@2013 05@07@2013 05@07@2013 05@07@2013 05@07@2013 22@12@2016 23@12@2016 vkj-lh-lh-ua- 7@2014 fn-16@01@14 iq-rk- 12@12@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 143@2016 fn-18@6@2016 iq-rk-28@11@17 {10} BA 1273 OF 2021 F 6- 7- 506] 34 Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM 70@2017 dye 395] 120¼c½ Ekktyxko xzkeh.k ft-chM 183@2017 dye 394] 457 Hkk-n-oh- 8- Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM 88@2017 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- ektyxko] ft-chM 1- lat; rqdkjke xk;dokM] o; 34 o"ksZ] jk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk ¼VksGhizeq[k½ 2- HkkLdj lkgscjko f”kans ÅQZ tksdj] o; 40 o’ksZ] jk-bZjsxko] rk-ft-tkyuk- 3- v..kk ek:rh f’kans] o; 35 o"ksZ] jk-eqdqanokMh vkSjaxkckn] g-eq- Mksackjh oLrh osGkiqj rk-ekGf'kjl] ft-lksykiqj- 4- fdj.k v'kksd tk/ko mQZ taxY;k] o; 19 o"ksZ] jk- eax:G] rk-?kulkaxoh] ft-tkyuk 1- lat; rqdkjke xk;dokM] o; 34 o"ksZ] jk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk ¼VksGhizeq[k½ 2- HkkLdj lkgscjko f”kans ÅQZ tksdj] o; 40 o’ksZ] jk-bZjsxko] rk-ft-tkyuk- 3- v..kk ek:rh f’kans] o; 35 o"ksZ] jk-eqdqanokMh vkSjaxkckn] g-eq- Mksackjh oLrh osGkiqj rk-ekGf'kjl] ft-lksykiqj- 4- fdj.k v'kksd tk/ko mQZ taxY;k] o; 19 o"ksZ] jk- eax:G] rk-?kulkaxoh] ft-tkyuk 1- lat; rqdkjke xk;dokM] o; 34 o"ksZ] jk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk ¼VksGhizeq[k½ 2- HkkLdj lkgscjko f”kans ÅQZ tksdj] o; 40 o’ksZ] jk-bZjsxko] rk-ft-tkyuk- 3- v..kk ek:rh f”kans] o; 35 o"ksZ] jk-eqdqanokMh vkSjaxkckn] g-eq- Mksackjh oLrh osGkiqj rk-ekGf'kjl] ft-lksykiqj- 4- fdj.k v'kksd tk/ko mQZ taxY;k] o; 19 o"ksZ] jk- eax:G] rk-?kulkaxoh] ft-tkyuk 5- mRre dk”khukFk xk;dokM o; 61 o"ksZ] jk- dslkiqjh] rk-ektyxko] ft-chM 6- vadq'k ek:rh f'kans] o; 20 o"ksZ] jk- eqdqanokMh] rk- 03@10@2017 03@10@2017 04@10@2017 riklkoj 03@10@2017 05@10@2017 05@10@2017 05@10@2017 riklkoj 05@10@2017 27@09@2017 27@09@2017 27@09@2017 27@07@2017 riklkoj 30@09@2017 {11} BA 1273 OF 2021 F ft- vkSjaxkckn 7- ckiq xaxkjke iokj ÅQZ ckI;k] jk- eax:G] rk- ?kulkoaxh] ft- tkyuk 27@09@2017 Qjkj In terms of Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act, prosecution has to obtain sanction of the Police Ofcer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police for applying provisions of MCOC Act. Prosecution forwarded proposal for according sanction to apply the provisions of MCOC Act. Accordingly, the sanction was accorded by the Additional Commissioner Aurangabad Region by order dated 12th November, 2017. 16. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that sanction has been accorded without application of mind. He submitted that applicant No.1 Kiran @ Janglya Ashok Jadhav against whom three offences are shown to have been registered. However, in these three offences charge-sheet was not fled when the proposal was made. He submitted that at the time of giving sanction, the requirement is that there ought to have been more than two charge-sheets in respect of organised crime syndicate in respect of the accused in which competent Court has taken cognizance. He submitted that since charge-sheets were not fled in these three offences, applicant No.1 Kiran cannot be brought within the purview of MCOC Act. He {12} BA 1273 OF 2021 F submitted that so far as applicant No.2 Anna @ Tura Maroti Shinde is concerned against whom also four offences are shown to have been pending, charge-sheet is fled only in Crime No.65 of 2011. Hoever, offence in that crime is under Section 452, 324, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that other Crime Nos.70 of 2017, 183 of 2017 and 88 of 2017 are under investigation and therefore, provisions of MCOC Act cannot be applied. He further submitted that in case of applicant No.3 Sanjay more than two offences are pending but proposal does not show as to whether there is any nexus between the two crimes. Unless nexus is established in the two crimes, provisions of the MCOC Act cannot be applied. 17. He further submitted that sanctioning authority did not apply its mind while granting sanction. He submitted that sanctioning authority has not mentioned in its order whether accused and the present applicants committed crime either singly or jointly as a member of organised crime syndicate. He submitted that sanctioning authority has incorporated the provisions of the MCOC Act in verbatim without application of mind and therefore, sanction gets vitiated. 18. Learned APP for the respondent submitted that in order to {13} BA 1273 OF 2021 F invoke the provisions of the MCOC Act what the Court has to see is whether there is a crime syndicate. If there is a crime syndicate and in that case any member, subsequently joins the crime syndicate, he is liable to be prosecuted under the MCOC Act. He submitted that requirements of two charge-sheets is against crime syndicate and not against individual accused. He submitted that while according sanction, competent authority is not required to sift through the material placed by the Investigating Agency before the competent authority with the proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain specifc role of each accused. He submitted that the competent authority has to fnd out whether the information or the material reveals the commission of a crime which is an organized crime committed by the organised crime syndicate. 19. In the case of Bharat Baburao Gavhane (supra), this Court held thus : “45. The order of approval also indicates that the basis of the same is that respondents are dreaded criminals and have a criminal intent. The order of sanction is also clear inasmuch as it states that the gang leader Shatrughna Gavane and his associates have committed serious ofences against human body. However, although the sanction order refers to serious ofences pertaining to property, there is no material placed even at the prima facie stage in that behalf. {14} BA 1273 OF 2021 F Therefore, merely stating that the gang leader Shatrughna Gavane and associates run an organized crime syndicate with a view to gain pecuniary benefts and other advantages so also supremacy over the rival gang by use of violence, intimidation and other coercive means, would not be enough. 46. The investigation according to the sanction order has revealed that the gang leader Shatrughana Gavane and associates run an organized crime syndicate with a view to gaining pecuniary benefts and other advantages but mere reproduction of the defnition of the term "organized crime" in Section 2(1)(e) would not sufce in the facts and circumstances of this case. Moreso, when the sanction order refers also to the fact that the unlawful activities are with a view to gaining supremacy over the rival gang of Ayub Papa Sheikh. Thus, as observed, the entire emphasis is on the activities indulged in by the rival gangs trying to gain control over each other so also attempting to demonstrate their supremacy. This is the reason for invoking and applying MCOC Act. Once this alone is the reason and the emphasis is as above, then the conclusion of the learned Special Judge that no prima facie material is produced to support framing of a charge for commission of ofence under MCOC Act, cannot be said to be illegal and improper.” 20. In the case of Altaf Ismail Sheikh (supra) this Court held thus : “The Section 23 of the MCOC Act which opens with non- obstante clause and further clothed with negative words {15} BA 1273 OF 2021 F clearly discloses the mandate of the legislature that the cognizance of the ofences under the MCOC Act should not be in routine course, but only upon the facts disclosing the applicability thereof and satisfaction of the ofcer of the high rank, the minimum being of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police in that regard. In fact, the ofcer of such high rank is required to decide about the approval even for recording of FIR in relation to any ofence under the MCOC Act. This obviously discloses that the approving authority has to apply its mind about the applicability of the provisions of the MCOC Act to the facts disclosed in a matter before allowing the recording of FIR and for that purpose, he must be, prima facie, satisfed about the commission of ofence of organized crime under the MCOC Act by the person or persons against whom the FIR is to be recorded. Obviously, for prima facie satisfaction regarding the commission of the ofence of organized crime or of participation therein in whatever manner, the approving authority must have some materials before it disclosing the activities of the person or the persons to be of the nature of ofence under the MCOC Act and having committed such activities on or after 24th February, 1999. In other words, the activities of a person to be termed as the ofence under the MCOC Act, the same should inevitably disclose to have been committed on or after 24th February, 1999. If the activity of the person is relating to the period prior to 24th February, 1999, obviously, it cannot be said to be an ofence under MCOC Act, even though the activity may be an ofence under the provisions of some other statute in force at the relevant time. For the same reason, when the approval is granted for recording of FIR and the FIR is {16} BA 1273 OF 2021 F recorded, then such FIR should apparently disclose the activities constituting ofence under the MCOC Act having been committed on or after 24th February, 1999. When the FIR does not disclose on the face of it that the ofence was committed on or after 24th February, 1999, obviously, the concerned authority must be able to establish the said fact, at least, by referring to the records which were available and placed before the concerned authority before granting approval and before recording FIR. It should not be understood that the power vested in the authority under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act can be exercised either as automaton or as autocrat. The power should be exercised on application of mind to the facts of the case and with necessary prudence and circumspection.” 21. In the case of Bharat Baburao Gavhane (supra), it has been held that merely stating that the gang leader and associates run organised crime syndicate with a view to gain pecuniary benefts and other advantages need not be enough since no material was placed before the sanctioning authority. 22. In the case of Altaf Ismail Sheikh (supra) the Division Bench of this Court held that approving authority has to apply its mind about the applicability of the provisions of the MCOC Act to the facts disclosed in a matter before allowing the recording of FIR and for the purpose, he must be, prima-facie satisfed about the commission of offence of organised crime under the MCOC {17} BA 1273 OF 2021 F Act. It is further held that for prima-facie satisfaction regarding the commission of the offence of organised crime or of participation therein in whatever manner, the approving authority must have some material before it disclosing the activities of the person or the persons to be of the nature of offence under the MCOC Act. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavitha Lankesh (supra) has held thus : “26. At the stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, therefore, the competent authority is not required to wade through the material placed by the Investigating Agency before him along with the proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain the specifc role of each accused. The competent authority has to focus essentially on the factum whether the information/material reveals the commission of a crime which is an organized crime committed by the organized crime syndicate. In that, the prior approval is qua ofence and not the ofender as such. As long as the incidents referred to in earlier crimes are committed by a group of persons and one common individual was involved in all the incidents, the ofence under the 2000 Act can be invoked. This Court in Prasad Shrikant Purohit (supra at Footnote No.10) in paragraphs 61 and 98 expounded that at the stage of taking cognizance, the competent Court takes cognizance of the ofence and not the ofender. This analogy applies even at the stage of grant of prior approval for invocation of provisions of the {18} BA 1273 OF 2021 F 2000 Act. The prior sanction under Section 24(2), however, may require enquiry into the specifc role of the ofender in the commission of organized crime, namely, he himself singly or jointly or as a member of the organized crime syndicate indulged in commission of the stated ofences so as to attract the punishment provided under Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act. However, if the role of the ofender is merely that of a facilitator or of an abettor as referred to in Section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5), the requirement of named person being involved in more than two chargesheets registered against him in the past is not relevant. Regardless of that, he can be proceeded under the 2000 Act, if the material collected by the Investigating Agency reveals that he had nexus with the accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate or such nexus is related to the ofence in the nature of organized crime. Thus, he need not be a person who had direct role in the commission of an organized crime as such.” 24. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the competent authority is not required to wade through the material placed by the investigating Agency to ascertain the specifc role of each accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that as long as the incidents referred to in earlier crimes are committed by a group of persons and one common individual was involved in all the incidents, the offence under the 2000 Act can be invoked. {19} BA 1273 OF 2021 F 25. The concerned Police Station had forwarded the proposal to the Commissioner of Police for invoking provisions of MCOC Act which reads thus : ueqn vkjksihrkauh Lak?kVhri.ks dsysys xqUgs o R;k xqUg;kaph ekfgrh [kyhyizek.ks vkgs v- dza- vkjksihps ukao lat; rqdkjke xk;dokM] o; 34 o"ksZ] jk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk ¼VksGhizeq[k½ 2½ v..kk ek:rh f’kans] o; 35 o"ksZ] jk-eqdqanokMh vkSjaxkckn] g-eq- Mksackjh oLrh osGkiqj rk-ekGf’kjl] ft-lksykiqj la?kVhri.ks dsysys xqUgs iksyhl Bk.ks lk[kj[ksMkZ ft- flan[ksMjktk] ft-cqy<k.kk Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk xqUgk jft- ua- 40@2011 dye 341] 342] 394] 34 Hkk-n-oh- 20@2013 dye 399] 402] 34 Hkk-n-oh- dye 17@06@11 jksth 06%40 ok- fn-11@04@2013 jksth 08%50 ok vVd Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 62@2013 dye 307] 323] 504] 34 Hkk-n-oh- fn- 5@7@2013 jksth 21%05 ok vVd Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM Ekktyxko xzkeh.k ft-chM Ekktyxko 'kgj 70@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- 183@2017 dye 394] 457 Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM 88@2017 dye 395]120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- uok eksa<k ft-ijHk.kh 65@2011 dye 452] 324] 323] 504] 506] 34 3@10@17 jksth 18%30 ok vVd 5@10@17 jksth 20%15 ok vVd 27@9@17 jksth 00%37 ok vVd 26@11@11 jksth 20%40 ok- vVd Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM Ekktyxko Ekktyxko 'kgj 70@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ 183@2017 dye 4@10@17 jksth 16%30 ok vVd 5@10@17 jksth l|fLFkrh vkj-lh-lh-ua- 230@2011 fn-24@08@11 iq-rk-5@12@17 vkj-lh-lh-ua- 85@2013 fn-28@06@13 iq-rk-7@12@17 vkj-lh-lh-ua- 7@2014 fn- 16@01@14 iq- rk-12@12@17 riklkoj riklkoj riklkoj vkj-lh-lh- ua- 171@2012 fn- 28@2@2012 iq-rk- 18@11@17 riklkoj riklkoj {20} BA 1273 OF 2021 F 3½ fdj.k v'kksd tk/ko mQZ taxY;k] o; 19 o"ksZ] jk- eax:G] rk-?kulkaxoh] ft-tkyuk xzkeh.k ft-chM 394] 457 Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj Ekktyxko 'kgj 88@17 dye 395] ft-chM 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj 70@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- 183@2017 dye 394] 457 Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM Ekktyxko xzkeh.k ft-chM Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM 4½ mRre dk'khukFk xk;dokM o; 61 o"ksZ] jk- dslkiqjh dWEi] ektyxko] rk-ektyxko] ft-chM Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM 5 HkkLdj lkgscjko f’kans Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM Ekktyxko xzkeh.k ft-chM Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM 6 7 8 vadq'k ek:rh f'kans] o; 20 o"ksZ] jk- eqdqanokMh] rk- ft- vkSjaxkckn Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM Ekktyxko 'kgj ft-chM lk[kj[ksMkZ ckiq xaxkjke iokj ÅQZ ckI;k] jk- eax:G] rk- ?kulkoaxh] ft- tkyuk xqykc fijkth iokj] Ekktyxko 'kgj 88@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- 35@2015 dye 452] 323] 504] 506] 34 Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj 70@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj 88@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj 70@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- 183@2017 dye 394] 457 Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj 88@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj 70@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj 88@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- Ekktyxko 'kgj 88@17 dye 395] 120¼c½ Hkk-n-oh- 40@2011 20%15 ok vVd 27@9@17 jksth 00%37 ok vVd 3@10@2017 jksth 18%30 ok vVd 5@10@2017 jksth 20%15 ok vVd 27@9@2017 jksth 00%37 ok vVd 22@12@16 jksth vVd 3@10@2017 jksth 18%30 ok vVd 30@9@2017 jksth 10%55 ok vVd 3@10@2017 jksth 18%30 ok vVd 5@10@2017 jksth 20%15 ok vVd 27@9@2017 jksth 00%37 ok vVd 3@10@2017 jksth 18%30 ok vVd 27@9@2017 jksth 00%37 ok vVd Qjkj riklkoj riklkoj riklkoj riklkoj vkj-lh-lh- ua- 143@2016 fn- 18@6@2016 iq-rk-8@11@17 riklkoj riklkoj riklkoj riklkoj riklkoj riklkoj riklkoj riklkoj 17@06@11 vkj-lh-lh-ua- {21} BA 1273 OF 2021 F 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 o; 29 o"ksZ] jk- cktkj lkoaxh] rk- [kqyrkckn] ft- vkSjaxkckn f'kok ÅQZ f'kokth ukxq f'kans] o; 27 o"ksZ] jk- fojxkao Bk.kk] rk- ft- tkyuk ft- flan[ksMjktk] ft-cqy<k.kk uok eksa<k ft-ijHk.kh lat; ÅQZ vackth firjkt tk/ko] o; 20 o"ksZ] jk- dzkarhuxj] ft- ijHk.kh uok eksa<k ft-ijHk.kh dye 341] 342] 394] 34 Hkk-n-oh- 65@2011 dye 452] 324] 323] 504] 506] 34 Hkk-n-oh- 65@2011 dye 452] 324] 323] 504] 506] 34 lat; ek:rh f'kans] o; 23 o"ksZ] jk- ukatkikVh] rk- Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 20@2013 dye 399] 402] 34 Hkk-n-oh- Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 62@2013 dye 307] 323] 504] 34 Hkk-n-oh- lat; fpekth tk/ko] jk- /kuxjokMh] Hkksdjnu] ft- tkyuk Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 20@2013 dye 399] 402] 34 Hkk-n-oh- fnid jkek iokj] jk- ikjMxko] rk- ijrqj] ft-tkyuk Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 20@2013 dye 399] 402] 34 Hkk-n-oh- v..kk y{e.k iokj] o; 50 o"ksZ] jk- iq[kjktuxj] Hkksdjnu] ft-tkyuk jkek v..kk iokj] o; 21 o"ksZ] jk- iq[kjktuxj] Hkksdjnu] ft-tkyuk Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 62@2013 dye 307] 323] 504] 34 Hkk-n-oh- Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 62@2013 dye 307] 323] 504] 34 Hkk-n-oh- 16 lksukth mRre xk;dokM] ektyxko 'kgj 35@2015 dye jksth 06%40 ok- 26@11@11 jksth 20%40 ok- vVd 26@11@11 jksth 20%40 ok- vVd fn- 5@7@13 jksth 21%05 ok- vVd fn-11@4@13 jksth 08%50 ok- vVd 230@2011 fn-24@08@11 iq-rk-5@12@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 171@2012 fn- 28@2@2012 iq-rk- 18@11@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 171@2012 fn- 28@2@2012 iq-rk- 18@11@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 85@2013 fn- 26@6@2013 iq-rk- 07@12@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 7@2014 fn- 16@01@2014 iq-rk- 12@12@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 85@2013 fn- 26@6@2013 iq-rk- 07@12@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 85@2013 fn- 26@6@2013 iq-rk- 07@12@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 7@2014 fn- 16@01@2014 iq-rk- 12@12@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 7@2014 fn- 16@01@2014 iq-rk- 12@12@17 fn-23@12@2016 vkj-lh-lh- ua- fn- 5@7@13 jksth 21%05 ok- vVd fn-11@4@13 jksth 08%50 ok- vVd fn-11@4@13 jksth 08%50 ok- vVd fn- 5@7@13 jksth 21%05 ok- vVd {22} BA 1273 OF 2021 F o; 18 o"ksZ] jk-dslkiqjh dWEi] rk- ektyxko] ft-tkyuk ft-chM 452] 323] 504] 506] 34 Hkk-n-oh 17 xaxkjke vk..kk f'kans] o; 40 o"ksZ] jk- uktkaikVh] rk- Hkksdjnu] ft-tkyuk ¼e;r½ Hkksdjnu ft-tkyuk 20@2013 dye 399] 402] 34 Hkk-n-oh- fn-10@3@13 jksth 06%45 ok- vVd 143@2016 fn- 18@6@2016 iq-rk- 28@11@17 vkj-lh-lh- ua- 85@2013 fn- 26@6@2013 iq-rk- 07@12@17 26. This chart indicates the offences committed by the organised crime syndicate. It shows that applicant No.3 Sanjay Tukaram Gaikwad is common in Crime Nos.40 of 2011, 20 of 2013, 62 of 2013, 70 of 2017, 183 of 2017, 88 of 2017. This clearly shows that applicant No.3 Sanjay Tukaram Gaikwad is common in all these offences. This shows that applicant No.3 Sanjay Tukaram Gaikwad is a gang leader and the other accused are the members of organised crime syndicate. The requirement for invoking the provisions of MCOC Act is not that two charge- sheets should be fled against the individual accused but the requirement is that two charge-sheets ought to have been fled against organised crime syndicate. In the case at hand, the material produced by the prosecution shows that the applicant No.3 Sanjay Tukaram Gaikwad is a gang leader of the organised crime syndicate and two charge-sheets are fled against organised crime syndicate. Therefore, there is no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants. {23} BA 1273 OF 2021 F 27. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no nexus between the earlier crimes committed by the applicants with the present crime. All the offences are under Sections 395, 399 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case at hand, there is recovery of golden ornaments from applicant Nos.1 and 2 and seizure of weapons from applicant No.3. Therefore, there is nexus between all these offences. 28. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are behind bars for close to fve years. Therefore, they deserve to be enlarged on bail. 29. It is worth noting that in the last two years no progress in the trial could be made on account of pandemic due to Covid-19. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of one year failing which applicants can renew their request for bail before the Special Court. In view of this, following order is passed :
Arguments
Shri Narwade, learned APP for the respondent submitted that the applicants have formed a gang and applicant No.3 – {4} BA 1273 OF 2021 F Sanjay Tukaram Gaikwad is the leader of the gang. He submitted that all the three applicants have formed crime syndicate and they have committed the instant crime as a part of crime syndicate. There is continuing unlawful activity on the part of all the applicants. Applicants are, therefore, not entitled to bail. 7. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the case of Altaf Ismail Sheikh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2403] and State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Baburao Gavhane [2007(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 15]. 8. Shri Narwade, learned APP for the respondent placed reliance on the case of Kavitha Lankesh Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [2021 (12) SCALE 420], Govind Sakharam Ubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra [2009 (3) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 144] and on the
Decision
ORDER i) Bail Application is rejected. {24} BA 1273 OF 2021 F ii) Learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the writ failing which applicants will be at liberty to renew their request for bail before the Special Court. iii) It is clarifed that the observations made in this order are restricted to the decision of this application only and the trial Court shall not get infuenced by the same and can come to its independent conclusion during trial. SPT ( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) JUDGE