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 18, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Somnath S/O. Narhari Solav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 July, 2020

Author: V.K.Jadhav

Bench: V.K.Jadhav

                                      1            18-BA-75-2020.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                18 BAIL APPLICATION NO.75 OF 2020

                        SOMNATH S/O. NARHARI SOLAV
                                  VERSUS
                         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                   ...
            Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ghanekar Nilesh S.
             APP for Respondent - State: Mr. S.W. Munde
                                   ...

                                CORAM : V.K.JADHAV, J.
                                DATE   : 13.07.2020

     PER COURT :-


     1.               The applicant is seeking Regular Bail in

     connection with Crime No.129 of 2018 registered with

     Purna Police Station, District Parbhani for the offences

     punishable under Sections 326, 143, 147, 148, 149 of

     IPC,      Section 7 of the Criminal Amended Act, under

     Section 37 (1), (3)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act,

     1951 and Section 3(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra

     Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. His application

     with similar prayer bearing Special MCOCA Case No.4 of

     2019 came to be rejected by the Special Judge

     (MCOCA), Aurangabad vide order dated 04.12.2019.




::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2020                ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2020 23:42:43 :::
                                          2             18-BA-75-2020.odt

     2.               Learned counsel for the applicant submits

     that the incident as alleged in the complaint had taken

     place as of sudden without any premeditation. In view of

     the same, Section 2 (1) clause (d) of the Maharashtra

     Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short "MCOC

     Act") is not applicable. Learned counsel submits that so

     far as Section 2 (1) clause (e) of MCOC Act is concerned,

     it   has      not     been   revealed   during    the     course        of

     investigation that the applicant has committed alleged

     offence as a member of an organised crime syndicate or

     on behalf of such syndicate, with the objective of gaining

     pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other

     advantage. Learned counsel submits that the informant

     has sustained only two injuries and as per medical

     certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent, Rural

     Hospital, Purna, both injuries were simple in nature.

     However, in second injury certificate, issued by one

     another Doctor, the fracture injury to the left forearm of

     the informant was noted. Learned counsel submits that

     as per the prosecution case, the applicant is involved in

     as many as six serious offences, which provide more

     than three years imprisonment. However, out of six




::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2020                    ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2020 23:42:43 :::
                                            3              18-BA-75-2020.odt

     offences, the applicant came to be acquitted in two

     crimes, vide Crime No.103 of 2013 registered at Purna

     Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections

     307, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and

     Crime No.46 of 2013 registered with at Purna Police

     Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324,

     323, 504, 506 of IPC, respectively. Learned counsel

     submits that rest of four crimes, no specific role has

     been      attributed      to   the   applicant.   Learned         counsel

     submits the application of the provisions of MCOC Act is

     without application of mind. Even though, the applicant

     came to be acquitted in two crimes as mentioned above,

     those crimes have been shown in the approval and

     sanctioned order. Learned counsel submits that the

     applicant is entitled to be released on bail.



     3.               Learned       APP   has   strongly      resisted        the

     application on the ground that Section 2 (1) clause (d)

     of MCOC Act is applicable to the case of applicant. Prima

     facie, there is an evidence about continuing unlawful

     activities by the applicant as a member of an organised

     crime syndicate. Learned APP submits that in terms of




::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2020                       ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2020 23:42:43 :::
                                        4             18-BA-75-2020.odt

     the provisions of Section 21 (4) of MCOC Act, the

     applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.



     4.               On going through the allegations made in the

     complaint and on perusal of charge-sheet, it appears

     that the incident had taken place as of sudden without

     any premeditation. The informant was driving Innova

     Car and at that time, one girl on bicycle had suddenly

     come in front of one white car coming from the opposite

     direction. It is the case of informant that he has stopped

     his Innova Car by applying the brake and the said girl

     safely left the place on her bicycle. However, it further

     appears that the applicant along with other co-accused

     persons was carrying the repairs of one motor vehicle

     tipper in one garage near the incident and thus extended

     the beating to the informant on account of his rash and

     negligent driving. It further appears that some persons

     from the community of the informant also gathered near

     the spot and some stone pelting incident thereafter had

     taken place. The informant has sustained only two

     injuries on his person. Thus, in view of the allegations as

     above, prima facie, I do not think that Section 2 (1)




::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2020                  ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2020 23:42:43 :::
                                          5             18-BA-75-2020.odt

     clause (d) of the MCOC Act stands attracted. So far as

     clause (e) of Section 2 (1) that is about the organised

     crime, I hardly find any evidence against the applicant.

     Though there are certain crimes registered against the

     applicant prior to the registration of present crime,

     however, considering the nature of allegations and the

     incident happened as narrated in the complaint, I am

     inclined to grant bail to the applicant with certain

     conditions: Hence, the following order.

                                  ORDER

1. The application is hereby allowed.

2. The applicant - SOMNATH S/O. NARHARI SOLAV in connection with Crime No.129 of 2018 registered with Purna Police Station, District Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC, Section 7 of the Criminal Amended Act, under Section 37 (1), (3)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Section 3(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount on the following conditions :-

::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2020 23:42:43 :::
6 18-BA-75-2020.odt a] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

b] The applicant shall not indulge into similar activities while on bail.

3. Application is, accordingly, disposed off.

(V.K.JADHAV, J.) ...

Sam...

::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2020 23:42:43 :::