Bombay High Court
Aniket Pandurang Navgire vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2021
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
rpa 1/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3204 OF 2019
Aniket Pandurang Navgire .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
......
Mr.Sachin H. Deokar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent - State.
......
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : JULY 28 , 2021.
P.C. :
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. The applicant is arrested on 17th December, 2018, in
connection with C.R.No.424 of 2018, registered with Khadak
Police Station, Pune, for the ofences punishable under Sections
307. 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code ("IPC", for short), under Section 4(25) of Arms Act and
under Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI
PRAKASH and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2021.08.03
15:59:31
Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOC Act", for shrot).
+0530
rpa 2/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc
2 In the First Information Report ("FIR", in short),
dated 29th November, 2018, the informant has alleged that he
knows Kunal Jadhav, Vipul Ingawale and Shrinath alias Tikya
Shelar, who are residents of Shukrawar Peth, Pune. The sister of
the complainant attends tuition classes. In the previous week,
Kunal Jadhav and Vipul Ingawale had caused harassment to his
sister. She had informed about it to the complainant. Thereafter,
complainant told Krunal Jadhav, Vipul Ingawale and Shrinath
Shelar that they should not trouble his sister. On 28 th November,
2019, the complainant was returning home. He come across Vipul
Ingawale, Krunal Jadhav, Shrinath @ Tikkya Shelar, Pramod
Shelar, Rahul Bhargude, Akshay Jadhav and Aniket Navgire. Vipul
Ingawale stopped him. He was abused. All of them assaulted him
with fst blows. Krunal Jadhav removed sickle and gave blow on
the head of the complainant. Vipul Ingawale also gave blow of
sickle on his head. Shrinath alias Tikya Shelar and Pramod Shelar
assaulted him with bamboo stick. Akshay Jadhav and Aniket
Navgire (applicant) assaulted him with fst/kick blows. All of them
fled away from the place of incident. FIR was registered.
3 Approval was granted under Section 23(1)(A) of the
MCOC Act for invoking the provisions of the said Act. On 3 rd
rpa 3/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc
January, 2019, sanction was granted under the provisions of
MCOC Act vide order dated 24 th May, 2019, and, Sections 3(1)(ii),
3 (2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act were invoked against the
accused.
4 Applicant preferred an application for bail before the
Special Court under MCOC Act. The said application was rejected
by order dated 16th August, 2019.
6 Learned advocate for the applicant Mr.Deokar made
following submissions:
(a) Provisions of MCOC Act are not attracted;
(b) Applicant is not member of crime syndicate;
(c) The injured had sustained simple injuries and he is
out of danger;
(d) The incident occurred suddenly in spur of moment;
(e) Applicant is in custody from 17th December, 2018;
(f) The applicant is not involved in any other ofence with
leader of the crime syndicate;
(g) The applicant had not used any weapon in the
incident of assault.
rpa 4/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc
7 Learned APP Mr.Pethe submitted that the applicant
has been named in the FIR. His involvement is supported by
evidence. Provisions of MCOC Act are invoked against the
applicant. He is member of crime syndicate. The complainant was
assaulted by all the accused. There are restrictions in granting
bail to the accused under the MCOC Act. He relied upon the
decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty1. The applicant
is involved in one more case registered with Khadak police
station vide C.R.No.76 of 2019, for the ofence punishable under
Section 326 of IPC. Co-accused Tikya Shelar is involved in the
said case. All the accused have assaulted the complainant. Two of
them were armed with sickle. He relied upon the contents of the
afidavit-in-reply feld by the Assistant Commissioner of Police
Vihrambag Division, Pune, opposing the application for bail.
During investigation, it is revealed that there is suficient
evidence to prove continuous unlawful activities of the organised
crime syndicate headed by accused Shrinath @ Tikya Ashok
Shelar and more than one charge-sheet has been fled against
the gang leader viz. R.C.C.No.2442 of 2017, R.C.C.No.2383 of
2018, R.C.C.No.2326 of 2018, R.C.C.No.5905 of 2017 and
R.C.C.No.247 of 2018.
1 (2021) 10 SCC 561
rpa 5/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc
8 The incident had occurred on 28th November, 2018.
According to informant, the accused Krunal Jadhav and Vipul
Ingawale had caused harassment to his sister, and, hence, the
informant had told them not to trouble her. The incident of
28th November, 2018 is not a pre planned act. Gangleader Tikya
Shelar was not involved in the previous incident of harassment to
complainant's sister. The complainant was returning home and at
that time he was accosted by the accused. The applicant has
allegedly assaulted by fst and kick blows. The complainant
knows Vipul Ingawale and Shrinath Shelar. Prior approval dated
3rd January, 2019, was obtained for invoking the provisions of
MCOC Act. The applicant was not armed with any weapon. There
is no confession under Section 18 of the MCOC Act. There is no
incident that the applicant was associated with the crime
syndicate and have indulged in the acts creating terror or
violence with the crime syndicate. In the past one ofence was
registered against the applicant vide C.R.No.76 of 2018 under
Sections 326, 143, 147 and 149 of IPC. Summary of the said
ofence forms part of the charge-sheet. Summary do not indicate
name of applicant. It appears, he was not named in FIR. It is
apparent that the applicant was not involved in the said
complaint. The incident relates to breaking of the glass of the
rpa 6/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc
house and threats by co-accused. The sanction order indicate
that, evidence collected establishes that Srinath @ Tikya Ashok
Shelar and his associates infurtherance of activities of their
organised crime syndicate, committed this ofence with a view to
gain pecuniary beneft for themselves by threat of violence,
intimidation and coercion. In the present case, there was no
question of pecuniary advantage. Learned APP has relied upon
the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Vishwanath Shetty (Supra). In the said decision, it was
observed that while granting bail, the High Court has not
satisfed the twin conditions mentioned in Section 21(4) of the
MCOC Act. While dealing with the special statue and having
regard to the provisions in Sub-section 4 of Section 21, the Court
may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to
arrive at a fnding that the materials collected against the
accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of
conviction. It would be necessary on the part of the Court is to
see the culpability of the accused and his involvement in the
commission of an organized crime either directly or indirectly.
The Court further observed that the High Court had ignored the
mandatory requirements. In the light of the said observations, in
the present case, it can be seen that the rigor of Section 21(4) of
rpa 7/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc
the MCOC Act, would not be an impediment to grant bail to the
applicant. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh Sharma
Vs. State of Maharashtra2, it has been observed that the
restrictions on the power of the Court to grant bail should not be
pushed too far. If the Court, having regard to the materials
brought on record, is satisfed that in all probability he may not
be ultimately convicted, an order granting bail may be passed.
The satisfaction of the Court, as regards his likelihood of not
committing an ofence while on bail must be construed to mean
an ofence under the Act and not any ofence whatsoever be it a
minor or major ofence. The duty of the Court at this stage is not
to weigh the evidence meticulously, but, to arrive at a fnding on
the basis of broad probabilities. The wording of Section 21(4), in
our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must
arrive at a positive fnding that the applicant has not committed
an ofence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the
Court intending to grant bail must arrive at a fnding that the
applicant has not committed such an ofence. In such an event, it
will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of
conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the
Legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be
construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the Court is
2 (2005) 5 SCC 294
rpa 8/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc
able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of
acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before
commencement of trial.
9 On applying test as above to the facts of this case, the
applicant need not be detained further in custody, despite
embargo under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act. Considering the
factual aspects of the matter, bail can be granted to the applicant.
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Bail Application No.3204 of 2019, is allowed;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.424 of 2018 registered with Khadak Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on frst Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. for the period of six months, and, thereafter, once in three month on frst Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m., till further orders;
rpa 9/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc
(iv) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not approach the complainant or any other witnesses;
(v) Bail Application No.3204 of 2019, stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)