High Court
Legal Reasoning
1BA.2230.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2230 OF 2024Balaji @ Balya S/o. Sambhaji Mahashette.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra.… Respondent...Mr. Suraj Bagal, h/f Mr. Bharat N. Gadegaonkar, Advocates for Applicant. Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, APP for Respondent / State....CORAM :SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.RESERVED ON:21st August, 2025.PRONOUNCED ON :26th September, 2025. O R D E R:1Heard both the sides. 2This application is filed for grant of regular bail inconnection with Crime No.0240 of 2022, registered with Umri PoliceStation, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections395 and 120(B) of the of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “theIPC”), under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and under Sections3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised CrimeAct, 1999 (for short “the MCOCA Act”). 2BA.2230.2024.odt 3The informant averred in the report that he is working as acashier at Vyankatrao Patil Kawale Non-Agricultural Patsanstha,Sindhi, Taluka Umri. On 1st October, 2022, at about 10:00 am, he wasin the bank alongwith the bank manager, Sandip Bhagwanrao Dhage,Sunil Shyamrao Kure (Clerk), Pravin Chandrakant Kavale (Clerk),Gangadhar Madhav Suryavanshi and Dnyaneshwar PandharinathTablewar (Servants). In between 02:00 pm and 02:20 pm, sevenpersons entered the bank with their faces covered with handkerchiefs.They were armed with swords and knives. They ran towards thecounter where the informant and his colleagues were working. One ofthem pressed a sword against Sunil Kure and threatened by orderingthem to place their mobile phones on the floor. During the scuffle, thesword struck the hand of Sunil Kure, but as he moved his hand, thesword fell on the table. Those persons threatened them and askedthem as to where the money is kept ? Thereafter, they turned to thecash counter and took an amount of Rs.2,02,590/- comprising Rs.500,Rs.200, Rs.100 and Rs.50 denominations. Thereafter, they fled fromthe bank premises. The informant and others came out of the bankand made hue and cry. One of the accused fell down. The informantand others caught hold of him. The remaining accused fled away. Oninquiry, the apprehended person stated his name as ManjitsinghKishansingh Sirpalliwale, resident of Nanded. When asked about the
Legal Reasoning
3BA.2230.2024.odtremaining accused persons, he disclosed the name of the applicantand five others. The apprehended accused also said that the fledaccused had taken the cash with them. Thereafter, the report waslodged. 4The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that theprovisions of the MCOCA Act are not applicable to this applicant.However, he has been arrested in this crime. By invoking theprovisions of the MCOCA Act, the police authority completed theinvestigation and filed charge-sheet illegally against the applicant. Theapplicant has no criminal antecedents. No amount is recovered fromthe applicant. The co-accused are released on bail. Therefore, theapplicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Theinvestigation is over and the custody of the applicant is not necessary.On the disclosure of co-accused, the applicant has been arrested. Thereport is cryptic and insufficient to identify the applicant. The applicantis not a member of the gang committing criminal activities for monetarygain. Therefore, the MCOCA Act is wrongly invoked against theapplicant. He is behind bars since 13th October, 2022. The applicanthas roots in the society and he will not flee away from the trial. Thetrial will take long period. The co-accused is released on bail. He isentitled for parity. The applicant is the breadwinner of the family. Hisdetention may amount to pre-trial conviction. It is lastly prayed to allow 4BA.2230.2024.odtthe application. 5The learned counsel for the applicant is relying on theorder in the case of Amjad Yusuf Pathan Vs. The State ofMaharashtra, (Bail Application No.132 of 2023) passed by this Courtat Principal Seat on 21st February, 2024, in which it is held that theremust be prima-facie material to show that applicant is member oforganized crime syndicate. 6The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicant is involved in the seriouscrime of dacoity. He is a member of an organized crime syndicate asper the MCOCA Act. He has five criminal antecedents. If he isreleased on bail, the very object of controlling such organised crimes,as contemplated under the MCOCA Act, and the term “control” used inthe title of the statute, would be frustrated. Considering the seriousnature of the crime and particularly, the MCOCA Act is invoked againstthe applicant, no case is made out for grant of bail. It is lastly prayedto reject the application. 7Perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the report and therecovery Panchanama of the incriminating articles. 5BA.2230.2024.odt8The applicant hatched the conspiracy. He is the mainaccused and the leader of crime syndicate. The evidence materialcannot be considered meticulously at this stage. The applicant has notfiled any application before the Trial Court stating that the MCOCA Actis not applicable to him. There is prior approval and sanction toprosecute the applicant under the MCOCA Act. The apprehended co-accused has disclosed the name of the present applicant. But there isother material against the applicant. If the term “control” is to beconsidered in the context of this case alongwith material placed onrecord, particularly, charge-sheet, it reveals that there is prima-faciestrong material against the applicant. He is arrested in connection withthe serious offence of dacoity. From the entire charge-sheet, it isprima-facie established that the applicant is a member of a crimesyndicate as defined under the provisions of the MCOCA Act, 1999. 9Considering all these aspects, the law laid down in thecase of Amjad Yusuf Pathan (supra) is not helpful to the applicantand hence it is not relied upon, as the facts are different and the caseis not made out for granting bail on the principle that bail is rule and jailis exception. Therefore, the application deserve to be rejected.Hence, the bail application is rejected.10The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as 6BA.2230.2024.odtexpeditiously as possible. However, it is clarified that if any matter isearlier expedited either by the Honourable Supreme Court or thisCourt, then the Trial Court shall conclude that case first and thenproceed further with this trial. Needless to mention that it is a sessionstrial and word “sessions” means once it is started it shall not bestopped till it is concluded. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga