Bombay High Court
Bharatkumar @ Maxi Dharamdas Poptani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 July, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:15684
1 927-BA.809-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
927 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 809 OF 2024
BHARATKUMAR @ MAXI DHARAMDAS POPTANI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jadhav Satej S. a/w Mr. Niraj
Chudiwal i/b Mr. Granthi Manpreet Ajeet Singh.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. M. Ganachari.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 24.07.2024
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
learned APP for the respondent-State.
2. The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.129 of 2023,
registered with Vazirabad Police Station, District Nanded, for
the offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387,
201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Sections 3/25 of the Arms
Act and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra
Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant and one Nandkumar were classmates of the main
accused Rindha, who has been settled in Pakistan. When the
ransom was demanded to first informant/victim, he went to
2 927-BA.809-24.odt
Nandkumar and Nandkumar took the assistance of the
applicant for negotiating the ransom amount. When Rindha
made a phone call to the victim, the applicant talk to him and
told him that the victim is also from their college. Due to his
intervention, the amount of ransom was reduced. Only on this
fact, the applicant has been arraigned as an accused in the
crime. He would submit that the statement of the applicant
under Section 18 of the MCOC Act is contrary to the
prosecution case. The prosecution could not collect the
corroborative evidence to strengthen the statement of accused
under Section 18 of the MCOC Act. Except this, the prosecution
has no evidence to satisfy the Court that the applicant was the
associate of Rindha and group. There are no grounds to believe
that the applicant is guilty of such offence and he is likely to
commit such offence while enlarged on bail. He would submit
that the applicant has no bad past. The trial may take its time.
Nothing is recovered from the applicant. The prosecution also
has no case that he facilitated Rindha in extortion of the
ransom from the people of Nanded. He simply held guilty for
having talk to Rindha. Except this, he has no role to play.
Hence, he may be granted bail.
3 927-BA.809-24.odt
4. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application. He is
seriously harping upon the statement of the applicant under
Section 18 of the MCOC Act. He would submit that he has
stated before the competent authority under Section 18 of the
Act that he used to act as per the say of co-accused Rindha. He
has played the active role. His conduct was sufficient to
believe that he was the member of the gang. He was
facilitated the main accused to commit the extortion. The
offence is serious. There is no material before the Court to
believe that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
applicant is guilty for such offence and he would not commit
any offence while enlarge on bail. He also referred to Section
21 of the MCOC Act and stated that the applicant does not
deserve bail.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that the so called mobile handset has been recovered prior to
the statement under Section 18 of the MCOC Act.
6. Perused the papers. The prosecution did not collect the
corroborative evidence after the statement of the applicant
recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act. The prosecution
has no material to show that before this incident, the applicant
played role in facilitating the main accused to extort the money
4 927-BA.809-24.odt
from the people. There is nothing on record to point out that
the applicant was constantly in contact with Rindha, who is
settled in Pakistan. The material placed on record shows that
the victim took the assistance of the applicant to reduce the
ransom. The applicant talked to Rindha on receiving phone of
the victim. There should be a reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had actually participated in the organized crime.
The bail under MCOC Act may not be granted, if there is
likelihood that the person while enlarged on bail would
commit offence. It is important to examine that when the trial
would be concluded. A specific role ought to have been
attributed to the accused to deny bail. There should be a
material that may raise the confidence of the Court that there
is likelihood of committing the offence after enlarging the
applicant on bail.
7. Considering the material on record, there is nothing
against the applicant except this solitary incident. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail though
there are certain restrictions under Section 20(1)(iv) of the
MCOC Act. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Bail Application is allowed.
5 927-BA.809-24.odt
(ii) Applicant BHARATKUMAR @ MAXI DHARAMDAS POPTANI be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount, on the following conditions :
(a) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
(b) He should not contact main accused or any member concerned with him in any mode or manner till the trial is concluded.
(c) He shall submit his passport, if any to the police and would not claim it till the trial is concluded.
(d) He should not leave Nanded town without leave of the Court till trial is concluded.
(e) He shall attend the trial on every date.
(f) He shall not involve in any crime.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) ...
vmk/-