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 10, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Murgandi @ Kumar Samungsundarum Tevar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 2021

Author: Prakash D. Naik

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

                                                             5-Ba-201-2020.doc




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      BAIL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2020

Murgandi @ Kumar Samungsundarum Tevar                 ... Applicant

            Versus

The State of Maharashtra                              ... Respondent

                             .....
Mr. Santosh M. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr. Dnyaneshwar Bhedodkar, (A.P.I.), Central Unit Crime Branch,
Navi Mumbai, Present.
                                     .....

                              CORAM        :    PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
                              DATE         :    2nd SEPTEMBER, 2021.

PER COURT:

1.                 The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No. 169 of 2016

registered with NRI Sagari Police Station, Navi Mumbai for offences

under Sections 395 & 397 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"),

Sections 3 & 25 of Arms Act and Sections 37(1) & 135 of Mumbai

Police Act. Subsequently, Sections 120(B), 411 r/w 34 of IPC and

Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised

Crime Act, 1999 ( for short "MCOC Act") were invoked. The First

Information Report (for short 'FIR') was registered on 6 th August,

2016. The applicant was arrested on 27th February, 2018.


Sajakali Jamadar                      1 of 7
                                                              5-Ba-201-2020.doc




2.                 The case of the prosecution is that, on 6th August,

2016, five persons armed with deadly weapons and fire arms

entered into the office of Popular Finance Company, where the

complainant was working and committed dacoity of gold weighing

20 Kgs valued Rs.6,00,00,000/- as well as cash of Rs.9,50,000/-.

They sat in swift car and fled from the place of incident. During the

course of investigation, the accused were arrested. According to

prosecution, Arputraj @ Appu Palraj Nadar is the gang leader of the

organized crime syndicate. He was engaged in several unlawful

activities. Prior approval was granted for applying the provisions of

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ( for short

"MCOC Act"). Investigation was completed. Sanction was granted

to prosecute the accused under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of

MCOC Act.


3.                 Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the

provisions of MCOC Act are not applicable against the applicant.

He was not the person, who had entered into the office premises

and committed dacoity. According to prosecution, the applicant is

person, who was driving the vehicle in which the co-accused Iqbal

Kasam Pathan @ Pappu, and Arputraj @ Appu Palraj Nadar were

travelling with him. The parade was conducted. Allegedly there



Sajakali Jamadar                      2 of 7
                                                              5-Ba-201-2020.doc




was discrepancy in the parade. The applicant has not been clearly

identified. During investigation, no role has been attributed to him.

Although, it is alleged that there is recovery of gold from the

applicant, it has not been identified to be the property involved in

the crime. The place where the witness had seen the applicant with

co-accused is situated at Kalamboli which is far away from the

place of incident. The co-accused Iqbal Kasam Pathan @ Pappu,

who was similarly placed has been granted bail by this Court. The

accused Subramaniam Balkrishnan Thevar was granted bail by this

Court vide order dated 28th August, 2019. The third accused

Ponnuswamy Tangaswamy Nadar was also granted bail by this

Court vide order dated 15th October, 2018. There are no criminal

antecedents against the applicant. He was allegedly shown involved

in one case which has resulted in acquittal.


4.                 The prosecution has filed affidavit-in-reply opposing

the application for bail. Learned APP submitted that the applicant is

member of crime syndicate. He has been identified. There is

recovery of gold weighing 180 grams from the applicant. The

applicant was driver of vehicle used in commission of crime. The

offence is of serious nature. There was robbery of huge property.

The applicant left the vehicle at Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai. The gold



Sajakali Jamadar                      3 of 7
                                                               5-Ba-201-2020.doc




ornaments were taken away. This incident was witnessed by one

person, who has identified the applicant in test identification

parade. The parade was conducted on 5th April, 2018. Gold chain

weighing 40 grams was seized from residence of applicant. C.C.T.V.

footage shows that applicant was driving vehicle.


5.                 Undisputedly, the applicant is not the person, who had

entered into the office of the complainant and involved in

threatening and committed dacoity of gold. The inmates of the

office has referred to five unknown persons having entered into the

office. Supplementary statement of complainant was recorded on

same day in which he gave description of accused, who had

entered the office and committed dacoity. His further statement

was recorded on 15th December, 2016, wherein it is stated that he

had visited Taloja jail for identification parade. While parade was

conducted he was scared and although he identified three accused,

he had stated that he could not identify them. Three accused who

were put up in the parade were Arputraj @ Appu Palraj Nadar,

Iqbal Kasam Pathan @ Pappu and Sudishtraj @ Sudeshraja @

Lamburaja @ Jada Raja. The parade memo indicate that they were

not identified by complainant. The second witness did not identify

them. The third witness identified them. The fourth witness did not



Sajakali Jamadar                      4 of 7
                                                            5-Ba-201-2020.doc




identify Arputraj and Sudishtraj. Accused Iqbal Pathan was

identified. The last witness in that parade did not identify any of

them. On 15th December, 2016, statement of one of the witness,

who had participated in parade was recorded and he stated that,

since he was scared, he stated during parade that he cannot

identify three accused, although he had identified them. Statement

of another witness was recorded. He stated that on 6 th August,

2016, one swift car was driven in speed and halted near him. Five

persons got down. They threatened him and the car was driven

towards Panvel - Mumbra. Statement of this witness was recorded

on 15th December, 2016. He stated that identification parade was

conducted on 14th December, 2016. Although he identified first

suspect, due to fear he stated that he has not identified him. He

identified second accused. Although he identified third accused,

due to fear he did not state that he has identified him. The name of

accused identified by him is Iqbal Kasam Pathan. Another

identification parade was conducted on 5th April, 2018. The witness

has allegedly identified applicant. This parade was held two years

after the incident of dacoity. It is not stated what role was played by

applicant. Statement of witness was not recorded after parade. The

co-accused Iqbal Kasam Pathan @ Pappu, who was identified by

witness and two other accused were granted bail by this Court.

Sajakali Jamadar                  5 of 7
                                                          5-Ba-201-2020.doc




Accused Subramaniam Balkrishnan Thevar was released on bail by

this Court by order dated 28th August, 2019. While allowing the

said application, it was observed that the said applicant was not

one of the persons amongst the five unknown persons, who had

entered into the office of Popular Finance Company. He was

allegedly involved in handing over gold ornaments given by co-

accused Arput Raj @ Appu Nadar to his mother. Ponnuswamy

Tangaswamy Nadar was also granted bail by this Court vide order

dated 15th October, 2018. The case of the prosecution against him is

that the gold weighing about 100 grams were handed over to him.

While granting bail to him it was observed by this Court that he is

not the person, who has been identified has involved in the crime.

Iqbal Pathan @ Pappu was granted bail by this Court vide order

dated 28th June, 2021. The case against him was that he was

associated with gang leader and there are cases registered against

him. He was identified by the eye witnesses and there was recovery.

This Court noted that there were discrepancies in the material

connected by the investigating agency. The test identification

parade was dubious. It is pertinent to note that, the said accused

was allegedly in the vehicle with the applicant. There is no

evidence that applicant is involved in crime syndicate and

committed offences. In the light of the aforesaid facts and

Sajakali Jamadar                6 of 7
                                                                                                5-Ba-201-2020.doc




                              circumstances, the embargo under Section 21(4) of MCOC Act

                              would not be an impediment to grant bail to the applicant.


                              6.                  Hence, I pass the following order:-


                                                                    ORDER

(i) Criminal Bail Application No. 201 of 2020 is allowed;

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 169 of 2016 registered with NRI Sagari Police Station, Navi Mumbai on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more local sureties in the like amount;

(iii) The applicant shall report concerned Police Station once in a month on first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon till further order;

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence the witnesses;

(v) The applicant shall furnish his latest place of residence and mobile contact number to the investigating officer;

(vi) The applicant shall not leave Mumbai City/Thane City without prior permission of the trial Court;

(vii) Application is disposed of accordingly.




                                                                                  (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

           Digitally signed
           by SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI   LIYAKAT
           JAMADAR
LIYAKAT    Date:
JAMADAR    2021.09.04
           14:10:57
           +0530



                              Sajakali Jamadar                        7 of 7