Bombay High Court
Ashok Mohanraj Chhajed vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2022
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/18 BA 486.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 486 OF 2021
Ashok Mohanraj Chhajed .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Mr.Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate i/b Karma Vivan for the applicant.
Mr.Sudeep Pasbola with Advocate Tripti Shetty for the intervenor.
Mrs.A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State.
ACP Shri Sanjay Patil from West Control, Bandra.
PI Shri Kiran Aher from Crime Branch, Unit-9.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 28th JULY, 2022
P.C:-
1 The applicant was arrested in C.R.No. 118/2020
registered with DCB, CID Unit IX, Mumbai, for the offences
punishable u/s.302, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC, Section
37(1)(A) r/w Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section
3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA, seek his release on bail. He came
to be arrested on 30/10/2020 by D.N. Nagar police station in Crime
No.534/2020. His Bail Application came to be rejected by Special
Judge on 15/1/2021, by a detail order by referring to the material
compiled in the charge-sheet, and holding that the material point out
that the applicant was the main conspirator in murdering the
deceased Abdul Munaf Abdul Aziz Shaikh (hereinafter referred to as
'Munaf') and the material indicate his complacency in the
conspiracy since he had agreed to provide finance to give effect to
the conspiracy.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
2/18 BA 486.doc
2 Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Aabad Ponda for the
applicant. Advocate Sudeep Pasbola has sought intervention in the
application, being the complainant. Ms.Takalkar, learned APP
represent the State, DCB, CID Unit-IX.
3 On 1/11/2020, a report came to be lodged by the
informant with D.N. Nagar police station, that deceased Munaf was
his maternal uncle and in the year 2007, he started SRA project at
Navbharat Co-operative Housing Society, and in the year 2008, he
purchased land admeasuring 1200 sq.ft from one Abdul Latif, father
of Accused no.9. Since accused no.1 Abdul Rehman @ Sonu
Abdulla Latif had an objection, he started meeting with Saleem
Baig, partner of Basera Project, with an intention that he shall be
included in the said project. It is alleged that accused Naseem
Khan and Peshkar Khan were not inclined to accept him into the
said partnership firm, and in the month of October 2019, the
accused no.1 and Naseem Khan and Peshkhar Khan awarded a
contract to Ankit Punjabi to eliminate Munaf and a criminal
conspiracy to commit his murder was hatched, but it was not
accomplished.
The informant stated that on 17/8/2020 at 5.15 a.m,
when his uncle had gone to Irla Masjid for offering prayer and while
he was alighting from his car, some unknown person assaulted him
by a sharp edged weapon, and when he attempted to seek shelter
in the Masjid, the assailant gave blows on his back, chest and
stomach. He fled from the spot and the injured was taken to
Cooper Hospital, where he was declared dead. This resulted in
registration of C.R.No. 258/2020. The complaint was registered
against an unknown person vide C.R.No. 258/2020 invoking
Section 302 of the IPC.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
3/18 BA 486.doc
4 Accidental Death was registered vide ADR No.52/2020
u/s.174. The post mortem assessed the cause of death to be
'shock and hemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries (unnatural)'.
On 18/8/2020, the accused no.1 came to be arrested
and on 20/8/2020, the seizure was carried out in the house of
accused no.2 Mohd. Nadeem Naushad Shaikh, and which led to the
jacket having blood stains, and jeans pant and T-shirt.
The incident was captured in a CCTV footage and accused
no.2 is seen wearing the same clothes. The witness handed over
the CD which was taken into possession by executing a panchnama
and the CD which record the event of October 2019, led to a
conspiracy being hatched by accused nos.1 and accused no.6.
5 The charge-sheet, after referring to the material compiled,
allege that Peshkar Khan and his sons Naseem and Wasim were
apprehending that they would loose the project and therefore, with
the assistance of the present applicant, who had interest in the said
project hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Munaf Shaikh. The said
conclusion is derived on the basis of various telephonic
conversation.
6 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, who has filed an
affidavit, state that during the course of investigation, it is revealed
that accused no.2 Mohd. Nadeem Shaikh, on instructions of
accused no.6, Naseem Peshkar Khan committed murder of Munaf.
It is also stated that the investigation reveal that accused no.1 Sonu
had made a phone call to Nadeem Shaikh and during investigation,
it was revealed that there was a Deed of Partnership between the
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
4/18 BA 486.doc
applicant Vijay Sharma and Salim Baig which was executed on
15/7/2003, where the applicant shared 25% share, whereas Vijay
and Saleem had 51% and 24% share respectively. The project was
stayed by the High Court for some point of time, but, later the stay
was vacated. Vijay who had a share of 51% did not possess
sufficient funds and the deceased was introduced for making
investment, and accordingly, a meeting was scheduled between
Vijay and deceased Munaf which was not attended by the applicant.
It is alleged that the Applicant had asked removal of Vijay from the
said project and the applicant was opposed to the entry of Munaf in
the said project. Despite his objection, Munaf was introduced as a
Partner on 14/3/2019 and this was disliked by the present applicant,
and that is attributed as a motive for the applicant to hatch criminal
conspiracy with other co-accused for murdering Munaf.
7 The investigation led to an Organized Crime Syndicate
being headed by accused no.6 Naseem Peshkar Khan and the
applicant is attributed a role of the member of the said syndicate,
which is involved in commission of series of offences including
offences by use of violence, threat of violence or intimidation or
coercion, by unlawful means with the object of gaining illegal
pecuniary benefit for themselves.
8 The affidavit in reply attribute that the applicant is a
Member of the Organized Crime Syndicate and hence, prior
approval was accorded to prosecute him under the provisions of
MCOCA and subsequent thereto, a charge-sheet came to be filed
before the Special Court on 4/12/2020. Subsequently, a
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
5/18 BA 486.doc
supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against Peshkar
Khalil Khan and Naseem Peshkar Khan (Gang leader) on 29/1/2021
before the Special Court. It is the case of prosecution that though
the applicant has no criminal antecedents, his role has surfaced as
the one who has introduced a person having criminal background,
in the project, with a view to pressurize the partners and local
residents. Though the Applicant did not remain present for the
meeting arranged, the prosecution rely upon the exchange of calls
between the applicant and witness no.1 and another set of
conversation between witness no.1 and the co-accused Naseem,
and it is stated that from the said conversation, which reveal that
the applicant made inquiry about the incident in question with
witness no.1 and he also inquired whether there was presence of
CCTV camera near the spot of the incident.
By referring to the aforesaid conversations, it is sought to be
alleged that if at all he had no concern with the murder, there is no
reason to make call to the witnesses and to gain information and
this goes to show that he was aware of the conspiracy.
By referring to statements of several persons compiled in the
charge-sheet, it is sought to be argued by the learned APP that the
applicant has a serious role to play in the whole conspiracy. Two
statements recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C are also relied upon, apart from
the conversation.
9 The learned senior counsel Mr.Ponda would vehemently
submit that the applicant was not present in Mumbai when the
murder took place and by referring to his CDR, which form part of
the charge-sheet from pages 1505 to 1912, the learned senior
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
6/18 BA 486.doc
counsel would submit that from 12/3/2020 to 17/4/2020, he was in
Rajasthan. On 17/4/2020, he came to Mumbai to pick up his family
and left with them on 18/5/2020. He would submit that from
18/5/2020 to 17/8/2020, there is not a single call exchanged with
any of the accused persons.
The learned counsel would submit that in the whole charge-
sheet, he is only accused of a motive, without any material in form
of any positive evidence being placed on record. The learned
counsel would submit that the entire exercise undertaken by the
prosecution to invoke the provisions of MCOC against him, itself is
contrary to the facts involved in the prosecution case by alleging
that Mr.Naseem Peshkar Khan is the head of the gang and the
applicant is one of its member. He would further submit that there is
no evidence compiled in the charge-sheet to demonstrate any
continuing unlawful activity on part of the applicant either as a
member of organized crime syndicate or otherwise, nor any link has
been provided to demonstrate the membership of the applicant with
the alleged organized crime syndicate or his involvement in any
continuing unlawful activity.
As far as CDRs which form part of the charge-sheet, he
would submit that there is no contact at all between the applicant
and the other accused since April 2020, and the CDR produced are
from 1/1/2020, which fail to demonstrate his connection to the said
crime. The communication inter-se between the accused persons
produced on record, however, do not involve the present applicant.
By inviting my attention to the sequence of events, the
learned senior counsel would submit that the deceased was not a
developer but he was a financer and the MOU which was executed
was between the applicant and Peshkar and there was no intention
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
7/18 BA 486.doc
on part of the applicant to replace the deceased who was his
financer. By inviting my attention to the MOU, he would submit that
even after introduction of Munaf in the partnership, his share
remained unchanged and therefore, there was no reason why he
was displeased with the said arrangement.
Submitting that Section 3 of the MCOC Act contemplate
mens rea, which is conspicuously lacking, the learned senior
counsel would seek his release on bail.
Per contra, the learned counsel Mr.Pasbola for the
complainant would lay emphasis upon the material establishing
nexus of the applicant to Peshkar Khan and he would submit that
there is sufficient material to indict him, as the circumstances
indicate that Peshkar Khan was appointed as a Consultant by the
applicant, despite being aware of his criminal background and he
along with his two sons - accused nos.4 and 6, Wasim and Naseem
would provide muscle power and their services could be utilized to
terrorize and/or intimidate the slum dwellers. Mr.Pasbola would
submit that the applicant expressed his reservation and objected to
the involvement of deceased Abdul Munaf in the SRA project and by
relying upon the statement of Sapan Kumar Rai, who has stated
that the applicant had informed him that he did not want to work
with deceased, and Peshkar Khan and his sons and Riyaz Bhati
would complete the project with the help of other financers, it is
submitted that the applicant attempted to bring other developers
into the project. Attributing conspiracy hatched on part of the
applicant to eliminate Munaf so as to exclude him from the project, it
is submitted that his application deserve to be rejected. Mr.Pasbola
would rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Prasad
Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015(7) SCC 440, and
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
8/18 BA 486.doc
would highlight on the parameters for entitlement of a person
accused under MCOCA to be released on bail.
10 Section 21(4) of the MCOCA prescribe, that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused
of an offence punishable under MCOC Act, shall be released on bail
unless sub-clause (b) of sub-section (4) is complied with, i.e. the
Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the application
for bail and the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and that
he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, when the material
in the charge-sheet is carefully perused, which charge the applicant
under MCOCA under the Special statute, the observations of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ranjitsingh Brahmasingh Sharma vs.
State of Maharashtra, 2005(5) SCC 294, are to be noted.
"38 We are furthermore of the opinion 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 satisfied 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 offence while on bail must be
construed to mean an offence under the Act and not any
offence whatsoever be it a minor or major offence. If such
an expansive meaning is given, even likelihood of
commission of an offence under Section 279 of the Indian
Penal Code may debar the Court from releasing the
accused on bail. A statute, it is trite, should not be
interpreted in such a manner as would lead to absurdity.
What would further be necessary on the part of the Court is
to see the culpability of the accused and his involvement in
the commission of an organised crime either directly or
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
9/18 BA 486.doc
indirectly. The Court at the time of considering the
application for grant of bail shall consider the question from
the angle as to whether he was possessed of the requisite
mens rea. Every little omission or commission, negligence
or dereliction may not lead to a possibility of his having
culpability in the matter which is not the sine qua non for
attracting the provisions of MCOCA. A person in a given
situation may not do that which he ought to have done. The
Court may in a situation of this nature keep in mind the
broad principles of law that some acts of omission and
commission on the part of a public servant may attract
disciplinary proceedings but may not attract a penal
provision.
44. The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion,
does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at
a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not
committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction
is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a
finding that the applicant has not committed such an
offence. 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 able to
maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal
and conviction and an order granting bail much before
commencement of trial. Similarly, the Court will be required
to record a finding as to the possibility of his committing a
crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in futuro
must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence.
Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an
accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of
the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused,
his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is
alleged to have committed the offence.
11 The aforesaid observations were affirmed by the Apex
Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Maranna
Shetty, 2012 (10) SCC 561, when it is reiterated that while having
regard to the provision contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21,
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
10/18 BA 486.doc
the Court may have to probe deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a
finding that the material collected against the accused during
investigation may not justify the judgment of conviction. The Court
at the time of considering application for grant of bail, shall consider
the question from the angle as to whether he was possessed of the
requisite mens rea. It was once again reiterated that when the
prosecution is for offence under a special statute, and the statute
contain specific provision for dealing with the matters arising
thereunder, the provision of looking out for the culpability of the
accused and his involvement in the commission of an Organized
crime directly or indirectly, cannot be ignored. It has to be borne in
mind that the non-obstante clause contained in sub-section (4) of
Section 21 of the MCOCA, which deal with the power to grant bail to
a person accused of having committed offence under the Act is not
only subject to the limitations imposed u/s.439 of Cr.P.C, but also
subject to the restrictions placed by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-
section (4) of Section 21. The satisfaction contemplated in clauses
(a) and (b) of sub-section (4) regarding the accused not being guilty,
has to be based on 'reasonable grounds'.
12 In the wake of the aforesaid authoritative
pronouncement, providing a guiding principle, I have appreciated
the material compiled in the charge-sheet against the present
applicant. The MCOCA arises out of an FIR of Juhu police station
dated 17/8/2020 being C.R.No. 258/2020 and the complainant,
nephew of deceased lodged a report about his uncle being
murdered, and also revealed the background about his business.
The prosecution case is on account of the business which the
applicant is engaged in, he was apprehensive about the
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
11/18 BA 486.doc
involvement of the deceased into the project and with the said
motive, he was eliminated by hatching a conspiracy.
The applicant is in business of construction along with
other business and he is a partner in various firms undertaking
various projects of construction. He is also a partner in the firm
known as 'M/s.EMEL Ashok Enterprises', vide a Partnership Deed
executed on 9/1/1995, which is duly registered, the other partners in
the firm, being Vijay Sharma and Salim Baig.
A development of a property situated in City Survey No.
515 and 516 at village Vile Parle (W), Taluka Anderi, was proposed
by the said firm and the said plot of land had various hutments. The
occupants had formed a Society known as 'Basera Co-operative
Housing Society', and issued Power of Attorney in favour of one
Ramdular Yadav. The applicant was also issued a Power of
Attorney for developing the said property on 16/1/1998 under which
the applicant was authorized to enter into the agreement with the
members of the Society and start the work of development under
the provisions of SRA. Accordingly, the agreements were signed by
the applicant with the tenants/ occupiers and the concerned
authority had issued Annexure II and Annexure III in respect thereof.
In the interregnum, a Writ Petition was filed in the High
Court, raising the issue whether a plot reserved for public purpose
can be utilized for redevelopment under SRA and this covered the
project of the applicant and interim orders came to be passed,
restraining development of all such properties, including the
property where the development was proposed by the firm of the
applicant. Since the matter was pending for a considerable point of
time, the property could not be developed. The partnership deed
was reconstituted in the wake of one of it's partners and the
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
12/18 BA 486.doc
applicant held his share in the minority as against the two partners
who held the majority shares of the firm.
13 The co-accused Peshkar Khan came to be appointed
as a caretaker in respect of the said property by virtue of a
Memorandum of Understanding executed on 21/12/2018 since it is
the submission of the applicant that he was resident of the locality
and who would represent the residents of the locality more
effectively. He was held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.30,000/- per
month and additional amount of Rs.75,000/- per month after
receiving all approvals and on commencement of construction. A
flat was also to be allotted to him which was estimated to be
Rs.Five crore. The said MOU is a part of the charge-sheet. The
payments were accordingly made to the co-accused Peshkar Khan
and statement of Mahavir Chajed compiled in the charge-sheet
refer to the same.
14 Another MOU came to be executed on 14/3/2019
introducing the deceased as a partner/financer, who was to finance
the project and obtain the Letter of Intent (LoI) of the project. A copy
of the MOU which form part of the charge-sheet reflect that
induction of the deceased in partnership do not change the share of
the applicant, which continue to be 25%, whereas the share of the
other two partners Vijay Sharma and Salim Baig underwent a
change and Munaf, the deceased took 10% from each of these
partners. The MOU being executed in the year 2019, was given
effect to and the case of the prosecution that the applicant was not
wanting the deceased to proceed with the redevelopment project
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
13/18 BA 486.doc
apparently, cannot be considered as the motive for commission of
the crime. The MOU did not vary the rights of the applicant in any
manner, and in fact, as per the said MOU, the deceased was to
infuse money in the project which was standstill in absence of
finances with the partnership firm.
15 An FIR No.258/2020 came to be registered on the
complaint filed by the deceased, where he alleged that there was a
conspiracy hatched by Abdul Rehman @ Sonu Abdul Latif Shaikh to
eliminate him, and the deceased had tendered the transcript of the
conversation which is compiled in the charge-sheet, which do not
involve the present applicant. The complainant himself had
narrated that the father of accused no.1 Sonu @ Abdul Latif Shaikh
owned certain land which was acquired by deceased Munaf from
them and some portion of the land was being acquired for road
widening project and therefore, they could not fetch the price that
was estimated. There was some discord between the deceased
and Sonu as he carried a grudge that they have been cheated and
in August-September 2019, the accused no.1 Sonu gave a contract
of killing the deceased to one Ankit Trikha Panjabi who, however,
refused to implement the conspiracy on the ground that deceased
Munaf was a namazee. Munaf thereafter called Ankit to his office
and had video recorded the conversation, which is part of the
charge-sheet and he has referred only to Accused no.1 Sonu, as
the one who assigned the contract to eliminate him. He do not even
attribute any role to Peshkar Khan and his sons. The complaint to
that effect were filed by the deceased Munaf to Joint Commissioner
of Police on 11/10/2019 against accused no.1 Sonu. The statement
of Ankit Panjabi was also recorded by D.N. Nagar police station,
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
14/18 BA 486.doc
who again referred to accused no.1 Sonu. The deceased thus
faced threats from Sonu and when the complaints to that effect
included in the charge-sheet, reflect the said threats.
16 The prosecution rely upon a 164 statement of a
witness, who was working as supervisor with M/s.EMEL Ashok
Enterprises and he referred to the partnership firm as well as the
various projects undertaken by them. He make a specific reference
to the redevelopment project undertaken by the firm and entering
into agreement with the slum dwellers, but since the project was
stayed by the High Court, he left the job in 2013. In the year 2014,
he was called back by the applicant since the stay was vacated, he
referred to the discord between the partners of the said firm and
state that Vijay Sharma had no finance to continue the project and
therefore, he introduced Munaf Shaikh to the partnership in the year
2019.
Munaf Shaikh, Saleem Baig and Vijay Sharma held a
meeting of the resident of the slum and declared that they would be
undertaking the said project. However, the meeting was not
attended by the applicant. The witness state that the applicant was
apprehensive that he would loose the project and therefore, he
decided to implement the said project with the help of Peshkar
Khan and his two sons and one Riyaz Bhati. He organized a
meeting since he wanted to introduce Riyaz Bhati as a builder and
the witness state that he had warned the applicant that Peshkar
Khan and his sons and Riyaz Bhati are criminals and he will not be
in a position to work with them. It is stated by him that the applicant
responded by saying that if Munaf Shaikh and Salim Baig are to be
stalled, Peshkar Khan will have to be in-charge. What is held to be
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
15/18 BA 486.doc
incriminating against the present applicant is statement of the said
witness who said to him on one occasion that enough is enough,
now something will have to be done about Munaf and he will have
to be removed from the way.
Another statement recorded u/s.164, of one estate agent is
relied upon by the prosecution when he state that during Iftaar,
Peshkar Khan had organized a party and declared that the
redevelopment work in Junaid Nagar shall be carried out by the
applicant and builder Riyaz Bhati. In August 2020, after Munaf was
murdered, he received phone call from the applicant and he
disclosed to him that Munaf was murdered. Upon that, the
applicant is alleged to have told him that he should keep him
updated and after two days, he received phone call from Peshkar
Khan and he disclosed to him that there is a general discussion that
his men had caused death of Munaf. He asked him whether the
names have appeared in newspaper. After two days, Naseem
called the said witness and asked him for some help. Naseem
called the said witness and told him that Ashok Chhajed should be
asked to pick up his phone, otherwise,he will disclose the name of
the planner.
17 A supplementary statement of Sapan Kumar Rai
reiterate that the applicant has told him that Munaf shall be removed
from the way and Peshkar Khan, Naseem and Wasim should be
allowed to work and whatever amount is required for eliminating
Munaf, including engaging lawyer shall be arranged by him. The
witness disclose that this was told to him when he resisted the
applicant from taking the project further with Peshkar and his sons.
The statement of Sapan Kumar Rai recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C is also on similar lines. The statement of one
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
16/18 BA 486.doc
Imran Mumtaz Khan is also compiled in the charge-sheet, where
there is a reference of applicant disclosing to Salim Baig that he
was not desirous of working with Vijay Sharma, but since he had
invested huge amount in the project, it was not possible to remove
him. According to him, the applicant had told Peshkar Khan to
search a new developer for the project. A reference is made to the
meeting of the Slum dwellers summoned in March 2019 which was
attended by Saleem Baig, Vijay Sharma and Imran Khan, but the
applicant was not present in the said meeting.
18 Statement of Vijay Sharma, the partner of the firm is
also recorded and he give a similar version that there was dispute in
the partnership and when Munaf Shaikh become active in the
project, the applicant do not approve of it. Shahabuddin Khan
whose statement is relied upon the prosecution also make a
mention of the applicant opposing the interest shown by the
deceased and he make a mention of an incident when Riyaz Bhati
and Ashok Chhajed (applicant) arrived on the spot with bouncers
and security guard where Peshkar Khan and his son had
threatened that anybody who would oppose the project would have
to meet dire consequences and that Riyaz Bhat is the boss.
19 Several other statements on the similar lines compiled
in the charge-sheet make a reference of the applicant not approving
the induction of the deceased in the partnership firm, but there is no
material in form of any positive evidence that he had taken any
steps for giving effect to the act of eliminating the deceased. Only
on the ground that he was not pleased with his induction, cannot be
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
17/18 BA 486.doc
said to attribute a motive to the applicant, particularly when
induction of Mr. Munaf is in the year 2019 itself by executing an
MOU and ultimately, Munaf was financing the project and he was
not a developer. No reason can be ascertained as to why the
applicant intended to replace him since he was a financer and Bhati
was a builder/developer. The material compiled in the charge-sheet
charging the applicant for the offence under MCOCA thus is only
the alleged motive that is attributed, without any positive evidence
demonstrating the actus rea, or linking him to the murder of the
deceased.
20 The submission of the applicant is, from the CDRs
compiled in the charge-sheet, he was not in Mumbai from 12/3/2020
to 17/4/2020 and he was in Rajasthan and the CDRs establish so.
After picking up his family, he again left Mumbai on 18/5/2020 and it
is submitted that during this period, there was not a single call
exchanged between the applicant and any of the accused.
21 As far as the transcript of the telephonic conversation
between the applicant and witness Imran Khan dated 17/8/2020 is
concerned, though Mr.Pasbola has read the transcript, to mean that
the applicant had participated in the crime, I do not find any such
conversation, indicating it to be so. The three transcripts compiled
in the charge-sheet do not lead to such an inference. As far as the
transcript of the conversation between the applicant and Imran
dated 22/8/2020 where a discussion take place about between
Imran and Naseem, in no case indict the present applicant. The
transcripts, therefore, do not take the prosecution case any further.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::
18/18 BA 486.doc
The charge-sheet contain only some material which make an
attempt to attribute motive to the applicant for eliminating the
deceased, in absence of any other material barring the motive, the
applicant deserve his release on bail.
22 On perusal of the material compiledin the charge-sheet,
I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the applicant is not guilty of the offence and in absence of any
antecedents being attributed to him, he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(a) In the event of his arrest, the Applicant - Ashok Mohanraj Chhajed in connection of C.R.No. 118/2020 registered with DCB, CID Unit IX, shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount.
(b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with evidence.
(c) The Applicant shall attend the trial regularly unless and until exempted by the Special Court.
The Application is allowed in the aforestated terms.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 19:49:39 :::