Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mahesh Hindurao Desai And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 September, 2021

Author: Revati Mohite Dere

Bench: Revati Mohite Dere

  NISHA         Digitally signed by NISHA
                SANDEEP CHITNIS
  SANDEEP       Date: 2021.09.20 13:18:19
  CHITNIS
                                                                                          22-ba.980.2021.doc
                +0530




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.980 OF 2021

                  1. Mahesh Hindurao Desai
                  2. Ganesh Hindurao Desai
                  3. Sunil Krushna Kamble                                        ...Applicants
                      Versus
                  The State of Maharashra                                        ...Respondent
                  Mr. Pranav P. Pokale, for the Applicants.

                  Mr. H. J. Dedhia, A.P.P for the Respondent - State.

                                                            CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
                                                          DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2021
                                                        (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
                  P.C. :
                  1.                         Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

                   2                         By this application, the applicants seek their enlargement on

                   bail in connection with C.R. No. 5 of 2019 registered with the Ajara Police

                   Station, Kolhapur, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 395

                   of the Indian Penal Code; Section 4(25) of the Arms Act; 65(e) of the

                   Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Section 3(3) of the Maharashtra Control

                   of Organized Crime Act ('M. C. O. C. Act').


                   3.                        Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants

                   have been arraigned as accused in C.R. No. 5 of 2019, in which the

N. S. Chitnis                                                                                           1/6
                                                                            22-ba.980.2021.doc


                applicants were not even remotely connected. He submits that the

                applicants have no antecedents. He submits that the applicants are

                languishing in jail, in a case, where there is no iota of evidence against

                them.


                4.          Learned APP fairly states that the applicants are not in anyway

                connected with the present C.R. He states that the allegation as against the

                applicants is that they gave shelter to       Shridhar Shingate, after he

                absconded from the Court. Learned APP fairly states that the applicants

                ought to have been made accused in the C.R. registered with the

                Gadhinglaj Police Station i.e. C.R. No.106 of 2020, which has not been

                done, instead of the present C.R.


                5.          Brief facts as are necessary to decide the aforesaid application

                are as under:-

                            On 6th January 2019, the complainant - Suraj Kalekar was

                accosted by 5 accused (not the applicants). The said 5 accused assaulted

                the complainant with fist blows and took away his gold chain, gold ring,

                mobile phone and cash of Rs.5,500/-. Pursuant thereto, the complainant -

                Suraj Kalekar, lodged an FIR with the Ajara Police Station, Kolhapur, on

                9th January 2019, which was registered vide C.R. No. 5 of 2019, as against

N. S. Chitnis                                                                            2/6
                                                                            22-ba.980.2021.doc


                5 accused persons, for the alleged punishable under Section 395 of the

                Indian Penal Code; Section 4(25) of the Arms Act and Section 65(e) of the

                Maharashtra Prohibition Act. It appears that subsequently, sanction was

                obtained and on 17th September 2019, Section 3(3) of M. C. O. C. Act

                was invoked, qua the 5 accused (not the applicants).     It appears that the

                learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 21st June 2019, granted bail to

                accused Nos.2 to 5 in the said C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 5 of 2019 registered with

                the Ajara Police Station, Kolhapur.

                            On 4th March 2020, accused No.1 - Shridhar Shingate, who was

                in custody in the said C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 5 of 2019 registered with the Ajara

                Police Station,    Kolhapur, was taken before the learned Magistrate,

                Gadhinglaj, in connection with another C.R. i.e. C.R. No.13 of 2019,

                registered with the Nesari Police Station, as against him for the offences

                punishable under Sections 387, 504, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code.

                It appears that the said accused No.1 - Shridhar Shingate fled from police

                custody on the said day i.e. 4th March 2020, pursuant to which, an offence

                was registered as against    accused No.1 - Shridhar Shingate i.e. C.R.

                No.106 of 2020, with the Gadhinglaj Police Station, for the offences

                punishable under Sections 224 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code.

                            After accused No.1 - Shridhar Shingate escaped, on receipt of

                secret information, it was revealed that the applicant No.3 - Sunil Kamble

N. S. Chitnis                                                                             3/6
                                                                           22-ba.980.2021.doc


                had helped accused No.1 - Shridhar Shingate escape, and that the said

                accused was given shelter by the applicant Nos.1 and 2 in their house.

                Accordingly, the police raided applicant Nos.1 and 2's house and accused

                No.1 - Shridhar Shingate was taken into custody. The applicants were also

                arrested by the police on 15th March 2020. The allegation as against the

                applicants is they had given harbour to accused No.1 - Shridhar Shingate

                in their house.

                            It appears that the said applicants were arraigned as accused in

                the original C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 5 of 2019 registered with the Ajara Police

                Station,   Kolhapur, after obtaining sanction under the     M.C.O.C. Act.

                Having regard to the facts, it is shocking to note on what basis the

                Competent Authority granted sanction to prosecute the applicants in the

                said C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 5 of 2019 registered with the Ajara Police Station,

                Kolhapur, despite the applicants having no connection, even remotedly, in

                the said C.R. The learned APP fairly concedes that there is no material to

                connect the applicants in the present C.R. It is surprising to note, that

                infact, the applicants were not arraigned as accused in C.R. No.106 of

                2020, registered with the Gadhinglaj Police Station, as against Shridhar

                Shingate and others, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 224

                and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, since according to the prosecution, the

                applicants had given shelter to Shridhar Shingate, after he absconded from

N. S. Chitnis                                                                            4/6
                                                                            22-ba.980.2021.doc


                police custody. Admittedly, the applicants have absolutely no connection

                with     C.R. No. 5 of 2019 registered with the Ajara       Police Station,

                Kolhapur, and as such there was no justification whatsoever to arrest the

                applicants in the said C.R. The applicants at the highest could be arraigned

                in C.R. No.106 of 2020, registered with the Gadhinglaj Police Station, for

                giving shelter/harbouring Shridhar Shingate, however, the same has not

                been done. The application of M.C.O.C. Act          and other provisions as

                against the applicants, in the facts, prima facie, appears to be a gross

                misuse and abuse of the said provisions. The applicants are languishing in

                jail since 15th March 2020 in a case in which the applicants have no

                connection. Considering the aforesaid, there are reasonable grounds for

                believing that the applicants have not committed the alleged offence.


                6.            Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the

                applicants are enlarged on bail on the following terms and conditions:-

                                                      ORDER

(i) The applicants be released on cash bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each, for a period of eight weeks;

(ii) The applicants shall within the said period of eight weeks, furnish P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount;

N. S. Chitnis 5/6

22-ba.980.2021.doc

(iii) The applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station on the first Saturday of every month from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial;

(iv) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

(v) The applicants shall inform their latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station.

7. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

8. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

N. S. Chitnis 6/6