Bombay High Court
Eklakh Rahim Shaikh @ Peti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 August, 2021
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
rpa 1/9 6 ba 3277 2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3277 OF 2018
Eklakh Rahim Shaikh @ Peti .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
......
Mr.Pankaj Kawale i/b. Mr.Sachin R. Pawar, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
......
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : AUGUST 24, 2021.
P.C. :
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., in connection with C.R.No.316 of 2016, registered with
Central Police Station, District-Thane, for the ofences punishable
under Sections 307, 387, 452, 120-B, 506(2), 427 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short) and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act. Applicant was arrested on 5th October, 2016.
2 The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
working with Heaven Construction and Developer, Ulhasnagar,
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2021.09.01
17:53:47
+0530
rpa 2/9 6 ba 3277 2018.doc
District-Thane. On 11th July, 2016 at about 11:00 a.m., he opened
the ofice. His employer had been to Mumbai for work. The other
staf members were present in the ofice. The son of the employer
was in the ofice. At about 3:15 p.m., one unknown person
entered in the ofice. He was wearing helmet and windcheater.
He inquired about the whereabouts of the boss. He removed a
pistol and fred towards the complainant. However, there was no
fring. The complainant tried to overpower the assailants. The
helmet of the assailant fell down. Another person entered in the
ofice. He was carrying pistol in his hand. It was pointed out on
the complainant. While the complainant tried to push the
assailant, he was assaulted with butt of the pistol on his head.
The complainant pushed the accused and ran inside the ofice of
his boss to save his life. The second person opened fre towards
complainant and fred on the glass of his door. The complainant
did not sustain any fre arm injury. It was alleged that gangster
Suresh Pujari was calling his boss and his son for extortion of
money and demanded ransom from his boss, and, threatened to
kill them if the amount is not given to him. Complaint was lodged
with the Central Police Station, District-Thane,Hence Suresh
Pujari had sent goons who had assaulted the complainant and
others. The assailants left the ofice. From the CCTV footage it is
rpa 3/9 6 ba 3277 2018.doc
revealed that they fed on motor cycle. Subsequently the
complainant learnt that his colleague Sagar Tambe was also
threatened by pistol. One of the assailant handed over one
envelope to Sagar Tambe. It was containing a white paper on
which number of Suresh Pujari was written. First Information
Report ("FIR", for short) was registered. Subsequently, provisions
of Section 3(1)(II), 3(2), (4) of MCOC were invoked against
Suresh Pujari and his associates.
3 The investigation proceeded. Statements of witnesses
were recorded. Confessions of the accused were recorded under
Section 18 of MCOC Act. On completing investigation, charge -
sheet was fled.
4 The applicant preferred an application for bail before
the Special Court under the MCOC Act. The application was
rejected by order dated 30th July, 2018. While rejecting the said
application, it was observed that there is recovery of fve pistols
and live cartridges from applicant. It was alleged that the
applicant had received one 9 mm pistol from absconding accused
Mahendra and the same was handed over to co-accused
Hanumant Gaikwad. The pistols were used in fring. Accused
rpa 4/9 6 ba 3277 2018.doc
Rohan D'costa had made arrangement of Rs.49,000/- for the
applicant. He purchased fve pistols. The applicant was previously
involved in the ofice under the MCOC Act, and, in view of
Section 21(5) of the MCOC Act, he is not entitled for bail. There
are confessional statements of the co-accused Vijay Pujari, Yash
alais Pappu Patil, Mithun Karmokar, Soni Tejwani, Naresh Gujran
who have named the accused and described the role. Considering
the recovery from the applicant and the confessional statement of
the co-accused, it is prima facie established that the applicant
and the other accused were involved in the commission of alleged
ofence. The applicant was enlarged on bail in the MCOC case
No.9 of 2008, and, during the pendency of the said case,he has
committed the present crime.
5 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicants are in custody from 5th October, 2016. He has not been
attributed any role of fring in the ofice of the complainant. He
was not present at the scene of ofence. There is no recovery of
mobile phone from the applicant. No overtact is attributed to the
applicant. The reply fled by the prosecution refers to several
cases registered against him. However, he is involved only in fve
cases, and, not 18 cases, as alleged by the prosecution. The bar
rpa 5/9 6 ba 3277 2018.doc
under Section 21(5) of the MCOC Act would not be attracted and
bail cannot be refused to the applicant since there is no evidence
of involvement of the applicant in the present crime. The
applicant was allegedly involved in the case registered under the
Arms Act. However, no charge-sheet had been fled against him.
The applicant cannot be kept in custody for indefnite period.
There is no evidence to show that the applicant is involved in the
present crime, and, committed the ofence as a member of crime
syndicate. The confessional statements recorded relied upon by
the prosecution are in the nature of hear say. The prosecution
case is false. The allegations are concocted. There is no evidence
of conspiracy against the applicant. The charge-sheet does not
specify any incident wherein the applicant had conspired to
commit ofence. He was arrested merely on suspicion. Reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court delivered in Criminal Appeal
No.389 of 2020, kin the case of NIA Vs. Areeb Ejaz Majeed.
6 Learned APP submitted that in view of ban under
Section 21(5) of the MCOC Act, applicant is not entitled for bail.
He is involved in several cases, there is evidence to show his
involvement in the present crime. There is suficient evidence to
rpa 6/9 6 ba 3277 2018.doc
show that the applicant is member of crime syndicate and
participated in the crime. There is recovery of weapons. Pistols
were purchased by him. The ballistic report supports the
prosecution case. Some weapons were used in the present crime.
The confessional statements of the co-accused establish the
involvement of the applicant. The co-accused Vijayprakash Pujari
had preferred an application for bail viz. Bail Application No.1905
of 2019. The said application was withdrawn and disposed of by
order dated 29th July, 2021. After hearing the matter extensively
and since the Court was not inclined to grant bail, learned
counsel for the said accused had withdrawn the said application.
Learned APP relied upon order dated 29th July, 2021. The
respondents have fled afidavit-in-reply, opposing this
application for bail.
7 The prosecution has fled afidavit-in-reply opposing
the application for bail. In the afidavit, it is stated that C.R.No.25
of 2016, was registered with Chembur police station against
Hanumant Gorakh Gaikwad and others for ofence punishable
under Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act. The applicant was one of
the accused in the said case. During interrogation, he disclosed
that on instructions of gangster Suresh Pujari he had supplied
rpa 7/9 6 ba 3277 2018.doc
pistol to accused Ravindra Ghare in the present case. The custody
of the applicant was taken for making investigation in C.R.No.316
of 2016. During investigation, it was revealed that gangster
Suresh Pujari and Ravi Pujari had given name of the applicant
through Hawala for purchasing the pistol and for threatening
and killing the employer of the complainant. The pistol which was
used in C.R.No.316 of 2016, was recovered in C.R.No.25 of 2016.
CA report of pistol was obtained in the present case indicating
that the bullets fred at complainants ofice are fred from the said
pistol. Statements of co-accused were recorded under Section 18
of MCOC Act. Confessional statement indicate that the conspiracy
of killing the victim was hatched by gangster Suresh and Ravi
Pujari. C.D.R. of applicant with other accused was obtained,
which shows that they were continuously contacting each other.
C.D.R. of Rohan D'costa and Suresh Pujari were obtained shows
that they were continuously in touch with each other. The
applicant had coordinating for arranging the persons for
committing the ofence. The applicant was previously involved in
the case where provisions of MCOC were invoked. He was
granted bail. While on bail, he is involved in the present ofence.
Amount was given to the applicant for purchasing weapons. The
confessional statements of the co-accused indicate that the
rpa 8/9 6 ba 3277 2018.doc
applicant worked for gangster Suresh Pujari, who had arranged
pistol and rounds. The applicant is involved in other cases.
Provisions of MCOC Act were invoked in C.R.No.415 of 2006,
registered with Turbhe Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The
applicant has disputed the registration of 18 cases as refected in
afidavit-in-reply. However, it is not disputed that he is involved
in fve cases. C.R.No.415 of 2005, registered with Turbhe Police
station relates to the ofences punishable under Sections 307 and
414 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1),(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC
Act. C.R.No.486 of 2007, is registered with Rabale Police Station,
Navi Mumbai for the ofences punishable under Sections 302 and
504 read with 34 of IPC. C.R.No.21 of 2016, is registered with
Chembur Police Station, Mumbai, for the ofences punishable
under Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act. It is contended by the
learned advocate for the applicant that charge - sheet had not
fled against him. C.R.No.167 of 2016 is registered with Shivaji
Nagar Police Station, Ambernath, District-Thane for the ofences
punishable under Sections 385, 387 an 507 read with 34, 120-B
of IPC. C.R.No.124 of 2016 was registered with Ulhasnagar Police
Station, District-Thane, for the ofences punishable under
Sections 385, 387, 506(2) and 120-B of IPC. Thus, there is
suficient material to show the involvement of the applicant in the
rpa 9/9 6 ba 3277 2018.doc
crime. In the light of the material against the applicant, he is not
entitled for bail. The decision relied upon by the learned advocate
for the applicant will be of no help to the applicant for grant of
bail. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.
:: O R D E R ::
(I) Bail Application No.3277 of 2018, is rejected;
(ii) Trial is expedited.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)