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 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Rohit Ashok Gawali vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 24 March, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:13386



                                                  1
                                                                          411.22WP

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          926 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.411 OF 2022

                                    ROHIT ASHOK GAWALI
                                          VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                                  ...
                              Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.A.R.Syed
                              APP for Respondent-State : Mr.R.K.Ingole
                                                  ...

                                            CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                                            DATE      : 24.03.2026

                     P.C. :


                     1]         The petitioner has approached this Court

                     quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.02.2022

                     passed by the learned Special Judge [District Judge-1 and

                     Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon] below application

                     dated 12.02.2022 filed in Crime No.450/2021, registered at

                     Chalisgaon City Police Station wherein bail granted to the

                     petitioner earlier in the same crime vide order dated

                     13.01.2022 was cancelled, exercising powers under Section

                     439 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground of

                     invocation of the provisions of MCOC Act and custodial
                                2
                                                      411.22WP

interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to investigate the

organized crime.


2]           The learned counsel Mr.A.R.Syed for the

petitioner submits that this Court, vide order dated 26 th

April, 2022 has granted stay to the order of cancellation of

bail dated 24.02.2022. The entire investigation was already

complete. The petitioner was arrested in the said crime and

the charge sheet is already filed in the aforesaid crime, even

against the present petitioner for the provisions under the

MCOC Act by stating that the petitioner is under the

protection of the interim order passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.411/2022. The learned counsel for the

petitioner   therefore   submits    that   further   custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary as the entire

investigation even as regards the stringent provisions of

MCOC Act has been completed and the charge sheet is filed.

He further submits that the impugned order dated 24.02.22

is passed mechanically without application of mind to the

role played by the petitioner in the aforesaid crime. The
                                3
                                                      411.22WP

petitioner is not a history-sheeter. The petitioner is involved

in one earlier crime being Crime No.199/2020, dated

03.07.2020, registered with Chalisgaon City Police Station.

Except the said crime, there are no other crime registered

against the present petitioner and as such the petitioner

cannot be said to be the person involved in continuous

unlawful activities. There are no two charge sheets pending

against the petitioner at the time of invocation of stringent

provisions of the MCOC Act. The observation of the

Appellate Court that the applicant is a member of the gang,

is also without any evidence to that effect. The mere

allegation about invocation of the provisions of MCOC Act

would not, by itself, make out a ground for interference in

the well reasoned order granting regular bail in the same

crime vide earlier order dated 13.01.2022. Hence, the

impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge,

cancelling bail of the petitioner, is without application of

mind. Hence, the impugned order may be quashed and set

aside.
                               4
                                                     411.22WP

3]          As against this, the learned APP Mr.R.K.Ingole

vehemently opposes the present writ petition on the ground

that the applicant is involved in the organized crime and the

same is made out and as such the Competent Authority has

granted approval under Section 23 of the MCOC Act for

prosecuting the petitioner under the MCOC Act. The

petitioner is directly named in the FIR and played major

role in committing crime. There is one crime registered

against the present petitioner wherein the petitioner is

alleged to have attempted to commit murder. The custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is, therefore, necessary.

Hence, the impugned order passed by the Special Court is

just and proper and the same is liable to be maintained.


4]          I have gone through the order dated 24.02.2022

passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalgaon. I have also

gone through the charge sheet placed on record by the

learned APP. Perusal of the charge sheet would also show

that the other co-accused were arrested and released on bail

and the charge sheet is filed against all the accused persons.
                               5
                                                    411.22WP

In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the

petitioner was protected vide order dated 26 th April, 2022

by this Court and the charge sheet shows that the

investigation against the present petitioner is also complete

and it is stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner was

protected vide order dated 26th April, 2022 passed in

Criminal Writ Petition No.411 of 2022. Even the entire

investigation in respect of stringent provisions of MCOC Act

appears to have been completed against all other accused

persons including the present petitioner. I do not see any

further necessity of granting custodial interrogation of the

present petitioner by upholding the impugned order dated

24.02.2022.


5]          The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported

in [2019] 17 SCC 326 was pleased to hold that the bail

granted to the accused shall not be cancelled mechanically

merely by adding of the new stringent provisions of the

subsequent offences. The Court has to apply its mind to the
                               6
                                                     411.22WP

facts whether the offences newly added against the accused

persons is made out and also taking into consideration need

for custodial interrogation to investigate newly added

stringent offences and then decide the application for

cancellation of bail.


6]          The trial Court has also failed to arrive at

satisfaction on the twin conditions as mandated under the

MCOC Act. The trial Court has failed to arrive at satisfaction

that the petitioner-accused is found to be prima facie

involved in the organized crime or that there is every

likelihood that the accused, if released on bail, may again

indulge into identical offences of the organized crime. In

absence of any such satisfaction arrived at as mandated in

the twin conditions provided under Section 24 of the MCOC

Act, the application for cancellation of bail appears to have

been mechanically allowed. There were no new record

brought by the prosecution to show that any subsequent

offences or threats or violation of conditions imposed by the

Court were committed by the accused persons. In the
                                7
                                                     411.22WP

absence of any supervening circumstance, the trial Court

was not right in cancelling bail mechanically by addition of

some stringent provisions under the MCOC Act. No doubt,

the trial Court always have a right to cancel the bail in view

of the addition of the stringent provisions or new offences

of serious nature of cognizable and non-bailable offences,

however, the same must satisfy requirements of the need of

custodial interrogation necessary and involvement of the

accused in the subsequently added serious offences. In the

present case, there is nothing on record to show that the

trial Court has arrived at such satisfaction that the

petitioner was involved in the organized crime and that his

custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation of the

organized crime. Moreover, since the charge sheet is filed

even against the present petitioner, also as regards, the

stringent provisions of the MCOC Act, need for custodial

interrogation there appears to be no necessity of custodial

interrogation of the petitioner.
                               8
                                                     411.22WP

7]          The learned Special Court has mechanically

interfered with the order passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Jalgaon, granting regular bail to the petitioner in the

same crime vide order dated 13.01.2022 only on the ground

that now the provisions of the MCOC Act were invoked and

the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary

without taking into consideration the role of the petitioner

as a member of the syndicate. Except one crime, which is

registered against the present petitioner, there are no other

offences registered against the present petitioner. As such,

the impugned order passed by the Special Court smacks of

non application of mind and the same is, therefore, liable to

be quashed and set aside. Hence the following order :


                          ORDER

i] The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.

ii] The order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Special Judge, Jalgaon below Application dated 12.02.2022 in Crime No.0450/2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.

9

411.22WP iii] The Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

[MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE DDC