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 10, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Mr. Sagar Laxman Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 February, 2021

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 BOM 391

Author: Sandeep K. Shinde

Bench: Sandeep K. Shinde

Rane                              1/6               BA-2650-2019 (SR.7)



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2650 / 2019

Sagar Laxman Sonawane

Age: 25 years, Occ: Nil

R/at: Room No.1, Capricom,

Building No.17, Evershine City

Vasai (East), Dist: Palghar                    .....Applicant

         V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

(at the instance of Tulinj

Police Station)                                ....Respondent
                               * * * *

Mr.      Tanvir Nizam a/w.        Mr.    Premlal Krishnan,      Mrs.

Mariam Nizam, Mr. Prestov Dias i/by. Pan India Legal

Services LLP, Aadvocate for the applicant.

Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for State.

PSI-Mr. S.B. Bhosle from Tulinj Police Station present.
                          CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

                          RESD ON : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2021.

                          PRONOUNCED ON : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2021.



P.C. :

1.              Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and
learned APP for State.
 Rane                             2/6                   BA-2650-2019 (SR.7)



2.            Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in

connection with Crime No. 1121/2018 registered with

Tulinj Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 392, 411, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of

Organised Crimes, Act ("MCOC Act" for short).



3.            Prosecution case in brief is, that on report by

Shital Ramdas Patil, Crime No.1121/2018 was registered
        th
on 19        October, 2018 under Section 392 of the Indian

Penal Code against three unknown persons, wherein she
                       th
alleged that on 29          September 2018, at around 19:00

hrs,   while     passing    through    D.Mart,      Near     Saraswati

Building, three motorcycle-borne persons snatched 12gm

gold chain, from her neck and fled.


                                                       th
4.            Applicant was apprehended on 29               November,
                                       th
2018; but enlarged on bail on 6             December, 2018.



5.            An, application was moved by the prosecution

under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on

February, 2019 seeking cancellation of bail granted to
the      applicant    vide     Criminal        Misc.        Application

No.130/2019      on   the    ground    that,   in    the    course     of
 Rane                              3/6                    BA-2650-2019 (SR.7)



investigation, applicant's complicity in 'organised crime',

individually and/or jointly with motive of gaining undue

financial gain for himself as member of                       Organised

Crime Syndicate was revealed and that approval has

been granted under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act by the
                                             th
authority    vide    order   dated       5         January,     2019     to

prosecute him under Section 3 of the MCOC Act. Thus,

the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thane vide
                nd
order dated 2        April, 2019 cancelled the bail              granted

to the applicant.



6.          Before    adverting     to   the       submission    of    the

learned Counsel for the applicant, in support of the

application, it may be stated that,



(i) applicant herein was arraigned as an accused in

Crime No.111/2018, 136/2018, 1029/2018, 1055/2018 and

Crime No.1107/2018 (five offences) and accused in C.R.
                                              th
No.1121/2018 (subject C.R.) on 28                  November, 2018 at

one stroke on the disclosure of the co-accused, Akshay
                                                         th
Salvi and Akhtar, who were arrested on 27                     November,

2018;
 Rane                               4/6                    BA-2650-2019 (SR.7)



(ii) in the aforesaid      five offences, Akhtar, is cited to be

a Head of the Crime Syndicate, of which the applicant

is alleged to be a Member;



(iii) prosecution has also recorded, confession of Akhtar
                                              th
(Head of the Crime Syndicate) on 18                April, 2019; and


                                                                    th
(iv) Test Identification Parade was held on                    16         April,

2019, in relation to Crime No.1121/2018 only and not in

relation to the five crimes, as stated above.




7.         The learned Counsel for the applicant would

argue that, Akhtar,        whose confession has been recorded

under Section 18          of   the       MCOC Act         has            resiled

from Part-III of the confession.          Relying on the retracted

confession,     Counsel    would     argue,   the    applicant            stood

fully absolved, in as much as, there is no other material

on     record     to   suggest       that,    he is a member of

Crime           Syndicate,           headed          by              Akhtar.



8.         Indisputedly, there is no other material, except
                                                          th
the statements of co-accused recorded on 27                     November,

2018 and retracted confession of Akhtar                        to indicate
 Rane                                  5/6                     BA-2650-2019 (SR.7)



applicant's complicity in five crimes and subject crime.

Even otherwise, applicant was arraigned in the crime in

question       and     five     previous      crimes,    only        on     the

information disclosed by the co-accused while in custody,

proof of which is prohibited under Section 25 of the

Evidence Act.



9.             In consideration of the facts of the case and

for the reasons stated, in my view, rigors of Clause (b)

of Section 23(4) of the MCOC Act, would not be a

hindrance in releasing the applicant on bail.                    Hence, the

following order :

                                  O R D E R

(i) The applicant arrested in Crime No. 1121/2018 registered at Tulinj Police Station, Tal. Vasai, Dist: Palghar shall be released on bail on executing P.R. bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one or more sureties in the like sum.

(ii) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer twice a month i.e. on second and fourth Monday of each month commencing from March, Rane 6/6 BA-2650-2019 (SR.7) 2021 between 11:00 to 1:00 p.m. and co-operate in the investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall furnish his permanent residential address and contact number to the Investigating Officer forthwith within a week of his release from jail.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

10. The application is accordingly allowed and disposed off.

11. It is made clear that, observations made hereinabove, shall be construed as expression of opinion for the purpose of granting bail only and the same shall not, in any way, influence the trial in other proceedings.



         Digitally
         signed by
Neeta    Neeta S.

                                                                  (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
         Sawant
S.       Date:
Sawant   2021.02.26
         15:57:44
         +0530