Bombay High Court
Sanjay Baban Dhamane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 July, 2019
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
32-BA 392-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2019
Sanjay Baban Dhamane ...Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
• Mr. Aniket Nikam I/b Mr. Aashish Satpute, Advocate for the
Applicant.
• Mr. Prashant Jadhav, APP for the State.
• Mr. Sunil Sawant, PSI, Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 29th JULY, 2019
P.C. :
1. The applicant is seeking his bail in connection with CR No.
I-6/17 registered at Khandeshwar Police Station, Navi Mumbai
under Sections 395, 341, 342, 412 and 120-B of the IPC and under
Sections 3 (1)(ii), 3 (2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act). The FIR is lodged on 8 th
January 2017 by one Pramodkumar Thakur.
2. The informant was a manager of M/s Reliable Carrier
Nikita Gadgil 1/8
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 20:45:05 :::
32-BA 392-19.odt
Private Limited, which was a transport company. On 4 th January
2017 at around 5.30 p.m. about 640 boxes of Cigarettes were
loaded in company's truck. The driver was one Sunil Yadav. He
started from the company's office at MIDC Ranjangaon and was
traveling towards Ambarnath. On the next day i.e. on 5th January
2017 the company lost the track of the truck on their GPS system.
The driver's phone was not reachable. After some time, the
informant received a call from an unknown person, who informed
that Sunil Yadav had requested that caller to make a phone call to
the informant to tell him that some offenders had committed
robbery of the container. Sunil Yadav was over powered, his legs
and hands were tied and he was given electric shocks through
battery. This happened near Kalamboli Circle. A Scorpio car
intercepted the container and three to four unknown persons from
that car committed that offence. Driver Sunil Yadav was dropped
at Aurangabad and the container was taken away.
3. The investigation was carried out and ten accused were
arrested. The charge-sheet is already filed. During the pendency of
the investigation the provisions of the MCOC Act were applied by
Nikita Gadgil 2/8
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 20:45:05 :::
32-BA 392-19.odt
obtaining sanction under Section 23(1) of the said Act.
4. It is the case in the charge-sheet that the accused Amol
Dushing, Vilas Wagh, Shahrukh Shaikh, Vikram @ Vikki Pardeshi
and Nilesh Pardeshi had actually committed robbery. The goods
worth more than rupees four crores were taken away. After taking
the trailer to Aurangabad, it was taken to a godown at Ghoti
where the goods were unloaded and thereafter they were
dispatched to various places.
5. The approval to apply provisions of MCOC Act was granted
vide order dated 26th April 2017. The sanction to prosecute the
present applicant under those provisions was granted under
Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act on 25th January 2018. The
applicant was arrested on 5th January 2018 and since then he is in
custody.
6. I have heard Mr. Nikam, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Mr. Jadhav, learned APP for the State.
7. Learned APP has filed an affidavit of Assistant Commissioner
of Mumbai, Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai pointing out the
investigation carried out in respect of the offence and in particular
Nikita Gadgil 3/8
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 20:45:05 :::
32-BA 392-19.odt
mentioning the role and evidence against the present applicant.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the only
role alleged against the applicant is that he had entered into a
lease agreement with the co-accused Madhav @ Mahadev Laxman
Kale in respect of the godown. The prosecution case is that the said
godown was used for unloading stolen goods and from there they
were dispatched to various places. He submitted that he has no
connection with the commission of robbery and even otherwise
there is no evidence against the present applicant. The entire
investigation is concentrated on the role played by Madhav Kale.
There is statement of an accursed recorded under Section 18 of the
MCOC Act showing that the accused had unloaded and dispatched
the goods at the instance of Madhav Kale.
9. Mr. Nikam invited my attention to the order passed by this
court (Coram: Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J) in bail application no.
657/18 dated 25th July 2018 whereby the aforesaid accused
Madhav Kale was granted bail. He also invited my attention to the
order passed by this court (Coram : A.S. Gadkari, J) on 7 th
December 2018 in bail application no. 2190/18 whereby the other
Nikita Gadgil 4/8
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 20:45:05 :::
32-BA 392-19.odt
accused Lijjo Jos Takekar was granted bail. He submitted that
their roles are much more serious than that of the present
applicant and therefore the present applicant deserves to be
released on bail. He submitted that there is no connection of the
present applicant with the entire conspiracy and no offence under
the MCOCA has been committed by him.
10. Learned APP relied on the statement recorded under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act whereby the applicant had shown
willingness to point out the place where he had concealed the
documents showing the agreement between Madhav Kale and the
present applicant. He, therefore, submitted that the godown was in
control and in possession of the present applicant. Therefore, at
this stage, it cannot be said that he has no concern with the
offence.
11. I have considered these submissions. I have perused the
panchanama which shows the documents relating to leasing out
the godown to the present applicant. The applicant had given
statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 8 th
January 2018. He had shown is willingness to point out the place
Nikita Gadgil 5/8
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 20:45:05 :::
32-BA 392-19.odt
where he had kept the lease agreement. Accordingly, the police
party went to Devlali and from the room shown by the applicant
this agreement was recovered. Said agreement makes an
interesting reading. It was purportedly executed between Madhav
Kale and the present applicant. In the entire document the godown
is not described by gat number or survey number from the records
of the municipal corporation or revenue authorities. The
description in respect of number of the property is kept blank. The
agreement was for the period from 1st May 2016 to 31st March
2017.
12. There is a statement of co-accused Amol Dushin pursuant to
which he had shown the godown in which the goods were
unloaded. That panchanama dated 29th March 2017 shows that
when the police went to that godown, the accused Madhav Kale
was called and he had opened that godown with his keys. The
inquiries made by the police also reveals that the godown was
belonging to Madhav Kale. The panchanama itself mentioned that
the said godown was belonging to Madhav Kale and that he had
other godowns in the surrounding area.
Nikita Gadgil 6/8
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 20:45:05 :::
32-BA 392-19.odt
13. There is confessional statement of one Shahrukh Shaikh
recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act, wherein he has
described the incident. Even there he had mentioned that the
godown was owned and was in possession of Madhav Kale.
Though he has retracted the confession, it is part of the
chargesheet. Thus, from the entire record and affidavit filed by
learned APP, the only evidence brought on record against the
present applicant is in respect of the godown. However, the lease
agreement itself does not describ which godown was given in
possession of the present applicant. Therefore, the basic link
between the applicant and that godown is not established even at
this stage. Similarly, the entire allegations in respect of the
possession of that godown are made only against the accused
Madhav Kale, who is already granted bail by this court as
mentioned earlier. Madhav Kale and Lijjo Takekar both are
granted bail. The present applicant's role is not even prima facie
established by the investigating agency. Therefore, at this stage, it
can be safely to be recorded that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the applicant is not guilty of any offence under the
Nikita Gadgil 7/8
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 20:45:05 :::
32-BA 392-19.odt
MCOC Act. Though there are two previous offences pending
against him, those are under sections 452 and 380 of the IPC and
there is no connection of those offences with the present offence.
Those offences cannot be part of the continuing unlawful activity
as is alleged against the present applicant. Looking at the incident,
his antecedents and nature of evidence, it seems unlikely that he
may committ such offence while on bail. Therefore, in view of the
above discussion, the applicant has made out a case for his release
on bail. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I-6/17 registered at Khandeshwar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Nikita Gadgil 8/8 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 20:45:05 :::