Bombay High Court
Rahul Rajabhau Dahale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 11 March, 2026
1 912.Cri.WP-331-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 331 OF 2026
RAHUL RAJABHAU DAHALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Bolkar Yogesh B.
APP for Respondents/State : Mrs. P. J. Bharad
...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 11th MARCH 2026 PER COURT :
1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Bolkar, submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, despite there being no evidence to show that he is a member of the syndicate. It is only alleged that the Petitioner received stolen property, based on a confessional statement recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act by the prosecution of co-accused Vinod. The learned Counsel further submits that even the said confessional statement under Section 18 has not been supplied to the Petitioner while furnishing a copy of the charge-sheet.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Bolkar, relies upon the judgment in Mahipal Singh v. Central Bureau of
2 912.Cri.WP-331-2026.doc Investigation and Another, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 282, to submit that the Petitioner could not have been added as an accused under the stringent provisions of the MCOC Act, as there are not more than one charge-sheet pending against him during the preceding ten years.
3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 25.03.2026. Learned APP waives service of notice for Respondents/State.
4. In the meanwhile, the learned APP is requested to direct the prosecution to supply the copy of the statement under Section 18 of the MCOC Act.
MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE NAJEEB..