Bombay High Court
Laxman Subhash Chavan vs Senior Inspector Of Police And Anr on 26 October, 2018
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
1 of 6 904.BA.571.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.571 OF 2018
Laxman Subhash Chavan Applicant
versus
The Senior Inspector of Police and another Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.945 OF 2018
Sanjaykumar @ Munna Babu Bula Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1120 OF 2018
Puru @ Bhuta Panduchinna Rathod Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr.Balwant Salunkhe for applicant in BA No.571 of 2018.
Mr.Rahul Arote for applicant in BA No.945 of 2018.
Mr.Nitin Sejpal for applicant in BA No.1120 of 2018.
Ms.A.A.Takalkar, APP, for State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 26th October 2018
PC :
1. The applicants in all these applications are seeking bail in
connection with CR No.I-07 of 2017 registered with Kongaon Police
Station, for offences under Sections 395, 365, 201, 120B, 411, 412
of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(II), 3(2) and 3(4) of
Maharashtra Control for Organized Crimes Act, 1999. The applicant
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:51 :::
2 of 6 904.BA.571.2018.doc
in Bail Application No.571 of 2018 was arrested on 28-2-2017. The
applicant in Bail Application No.945 of 2018 was arrested on 8-3-
2017 and applicant in Bail Application No.1120 of 2018 was arrested
on 13-2-2018. The FIR was registered on 10-1-2017. On completing
investigation charge sheet has been filed.
2. The prosecution case is that the complainant is resident of
Kalyan, District Thane. He is employee of company viz Proconnect
Supply Solutions Limited as Assistant General Manager. The said
company is having its godown at Gala Nos.1 to 10, Building No.E/6,
behind Cipla Company, Pimpalas Road, Pimplas Gaon, Tal.Bhiwandi
wherein electronic goods of various companies are stored. About 50
persons are working in the said godown. Several security guards are
deputed for security in the said godown. On 10-1-2017 the
complainant received telephonic call from the security guard
informing him that theft has taken place in the godown of the
company. The complainant immediately rushed to the spot. On
reaching the godown it was revealed that shutter no.11 of the
godown was broken and the accused had committed theft of mobile
phones, I-Pods, Chargers and USB cables valued at Rs.42,19,490/-.
The complainant thereafter lodged complaint in respect of said theft
with Kongaon Police Station against unknown persons. The offence
as stated hereinabove was registered. The spot panchanama was
recorded. Subsequently the accused were arrested. Approval was
sought for application of provisions of MCOC Act in accordance with
Section 23(1) of the said Act. Sanction was accorded for application
of provisions of MCOC Act. The applicants were remanded to
custody from time to time. On completing investigation charge sheet
has been filed.
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:51 :::
3 of 6 904.BA.571.2018.doc
3. Learned counsel representing the accused submitted that the
provisions of MCOC Act are not attracted in the present case. There
is no evidence to show that the applicant were the members of
organized crime syndicate. The prosecution is relying upon the
confession of one of the accused Santosh Chavan recorded u/s 18 of
MCOC Act. It is a weak piece of evidence and requires
corroboration. Considering the nature of evidence against
applicants, embargo enunciated u/s 21(4) of MCOC Act is not
attracted against applicants.
4. Learned counsel for applicant in BA NO.571 of 2018 submitted
that the said applicant is in custody from the date of arrest. He has
not been identified by any eye witness. There is no recovery at his
instance. There is no evidence to establish that he is member of
organized crime syndicate. In the absence of identification, the
applicant cannot be subjected to further detention. In the absence of
cogent evidence in crime in which he is arrested, on account of
invocation of provisions of MCOC Act, the applicant cannot be
subjected to further custody.
Learned counsel for applicant in BA No.945 of 2018 submitted
that there is no evidence to establish his presence at the scene of
offence. No witness has indicated his presence. What is used against
him is the confessional statement of the co-accused. There is no
corroboration to the said statement. There is no identification
parade showing his involvement in the crime. There is no recovery
from him.
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:51 :::
4 of 6 904.BA.571.2018.doc
Learned counsel for applicant in BA No.1120 of 2018
submitted that the applicant is in custody from the date of arrest.
The provisions of MCOC Act are not applicable to him. Although he
has been identified, for want of evidence to apply the provisions of
MCOC Act, he be released on bail.
5. Learned APP submitted that the applicants are members of
organized crime syndicate. There is evidence to show the
involvement in the crime. The confessional statement of the co-
accused indicts the applicants. There are antecedents against them.
It is submitted that the applicant in BA No.571 of 2018 was also
involved in the crimes. There are six cases pending against him
including the present case. Considering the fact that he is history
sheeter and evidence collected by the investigating machinery,
provisions of MCOC Act were invoked in that case. It is further
submitted that the said applicant was involved in a case where police
authorities from Karnataka were attacked and offence u/s 307 of IPC
is registered against him in Karnataka State. Learned counsel for
applicant, however, submitted that he was granted bail by High
Court of Karnataka. Learned APP further submitted that the
applicant in BA No.945 of 2018 is also having criminal antecedents.
One case is pending against him. The advocate for applicant,
however, submits that the said case was registered after registration
of present crime and he is on bail in the said case. It is submitted
that the statement of witness recorded during the investigation
indicate that the said applicant was trying to sell the cell phone to
the witness. It is submitted that he is member of organized crime
syndicate. It is further submitted that the applicant in BA No.1120of
2018 is involved in the crime. The confessional statement of the co-
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:51 :::
5 of 6 904.BA.571.2018.doc
accused indicts him. The said applicant has been identified in the
test identification parade. There is recovery at his instance. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that as far as said applicant is
concerned, there is recovery of cell phones worth Rs.2.40 lakhs.
6. I have perused the charge sheet. The applicants are in custody
from the date of arrest. The prosecution is relying on the
confessional statement of accused no.9 recorded u/s 18 of MCOC
Act. During the course of investigation the property worth Rs.42.19
lakh has been recovered. It is noted that as far as applicants in BA
Nos.571 of 2018 and 945 of 2018 are concerned, they are not
identified in the identification parade. There is no evidence to show
that they are in the crime. There is no recovery at their instance. As
far as applicant in BA No.571 of 2018 is concerned, there are
antecedents, however, he is on bail in the said case. The applicant in
BA No.945 of 2018 is having one criminal antecedent which was
registered after registration of present charge by the same police
station. It is submitted that the said FIR was registered against
unknown persons in which said applicant was shown as an accused
after his arrest in the present case. Considering the nature of
evidence against the applicants of BA Nos.571 of 2018 and 945 of
2018, the rigors of Section 21(4) of MCOC Act would not be
attracted and in the light of the observations of Supreme Court in the
case of Ranjit Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005-ALL MR
{Cri}-1538 {SC}), they are entitled for bail. However, as far as
applicant in BA No.1120of 2018 is concerned, there is evidence of
identification and there is also recovery from him. In the
circumstances bail cannot be granted to the said applicant. He was
identified in the test identification parade on 22-3-2017. During the
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:51 :::
6 of 6 904.BA.571.2018.doc
search at his residence four I-phones worth Rs.2.40 lakh were seized
at his instance. The prosecution is also relying on the statement of
witness Sagar Pawar in respect to role played by him in the crime. In
the circumstances, the applicant in BA No.1120 of 2016 is not
entitled for bail.
7. Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) Criminal Bail Application No.571 of 2018 and Criminal Bail Application No.945 of 2018 are allowed and disposed off;
(ii) Criminal Bail Application No.1120 of 2018 is rejected;
(iii) The applicants in Criminal Bail Application Nos.571 of 2018 and 945 of 2018 be released on bail in connection with CR No.I-07 of 2017 registered with Kongaon Police Station, on their furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(iv) The applicants in Bail Application Nos.571 of 2018 and 945 of 2018 are directed to report Kongaon Police Station once in a month on every first Saturday between 10 am and 12 noon till conclusion of trial;
(v) The applicants in Bail Application Nos.571 of 2018 and 945 of 2018 shall also attend the Trial Court regularly on dates of hearing of the case, unless exempted by the said Court for some reason.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST ::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:51 :::