Bombay High Court
Shivaji @ Bibhishan S/O. Mahadeo Chate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 October, 2020
Author: V. K. Jadhav
Bench: V. K. Jadhav
1 5-BA.789-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 BAIL APPLICATION NO.789 OF 2020
SHIVAJI @ BIBHISHAN S/O. MAHADEO CHATE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
......
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ghanekar Nilesh S.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde.
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 14.10.2020
PER COURT :-
1. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with
Crime No.66 of 2017 registered with Parali (Rural) Police
Station, Taluka Parali, District Beed for the offences punishable
under Section 392, 393, 353 read with Section 34 of the IPC
and Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of M.C.O.C. Act. His
application with similar prayer came to be rejected by the
Special Judge under MCOC Act, Aurangabad, vide order dated
18.06.2020, below Exh.39 in Special MCOCA Case No.1 of
2018.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that by
order dated 19.08.2019 in Bail Application No.582 of 2019,
::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 03:43:23 :::
2 5-BA.789-20.odt
this Court (Coram : V. K. Jadhav, J.) has disposed of the
application of the applicant seeking bail as withdrawn. The
learned counsel submits that, however, there is change in the
circumstances. Thereafter the Special Judge under MCOC Act,
Aurangabad by order dated 19.12.2019 below Exh.29 in
Special MCOCA Case No.1 of 2017 granted bail to co-accused
No.2 Prashant Suresh Shep. The learned counsel submits that
though the Identification Parade was conducted during
investigation, however, the present applicant was not
identified. The learned counsel submits that though there is a
recovery of certain articles at the instance of the present
applicant during investigation, however, the same is not
recovered in connection with the present crime. The learned
counsel submits that co-accused No.2 Prashant came to be
released by the Special Court though there are four common
crimes registered against him and the present applicant. There
are two more crimes against the present applicant, however,
the said crime does not attract the provisions of MCOC Act.
The learned counsel submits that the principle of parity stands
applicable and the applicant may be released on bail.
3. The learned APP has strongly resisted the application on
::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 03:43:23 :::
3 5-BA.789-20.odt
the ground that the case as against co-accused No.2 Prashant is
distinguishable on material aspects. Furthermore, after charge-
sheet, this Court by order dated 19.08.2019 has disposed off
the application seeking bail filed by the applicant as
withdrawn. Thereafter no liberty was granted to the applicant
to file the application for regular bail on any other ground. In
the facts of the case and particularly the evidence as against
the applicant, the principle of parity is not attracted. The
applicant may not be released on bail.
4. It appears that informant Balu Bhimaji Agarkar, who is a
Junior Telecom Officer at the relevant time along with the staff
members was searching the fault in the OFC cable of village
limits of Bhopala, on Parali to Ambejogai road. They all were
in the Government vehicle. Though they found the fault,
however, could not repair it due to the night time and they
returned to Beed and again on 24.02.2017, at about 11.00 a.m.
started repairing work. However, at about 4.30 p.m., when
they were doing the repairing work, some three unknown
persons of age group of 30 to 35 years came there, threatened
to stop repairing work. They had forcibly taken the mobile
handsets and the machine from the staff members. The said
::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 03:43:23 :::
4 5-BA.789-20.odt
machine was worth of Rs.30,000/-. They have also committed
the robbery of the OFC fiber cutting cutter. On the basis of
these allegations, all three accused persons came to be arrested
on 17.08.2017.
5. It appears that during the course of investigation, at the
instance of the present applicant, two electrodes and one
power cord came to be seized under the memorandum and
seizure panchnama drawn under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. It further appears that the applicant is a gang leader of a
organized crimes syndicate / gang and the said gang has
committed the various offences under the leadership of the
present applicant. The applicant has filed the successive
applications for getting released on bail. I have carefully gone
through the order passed in respect of co-accused No.2
Prashant. The allegations against him altogether different and
there is no recovery against him. It has been observed by the
Court that the only material on record is the statement of co-
accused Shivaji i.e. the present applicant. It further appears
that though there are four common crimes registered against
the applicant and the said co-accused Prashant, however, in
addition to that, two more crimes seems to have been
::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 03:43:23 :::
5 5-BA.789-20.odt
registered against the applicant. It has been revealed during
the course of investigation that the applicant is a leader of the
said organized crimes syndicate / gang. So far as the earlier
disposal of the application of the applicant bearing Bail
Application No.582 of 2019, by order dated 19.08.2019 is
concerned, no further liberty is granted to the applicant to file
application for bail in the change circumstance. Furthermore,
it also appears from the order passed by the Special Judge
under the MCOC Act that the withdrawal of the said
application before this court was not pointed out to the learned
Judge before passing the said order, below Exh.29 in respect of
co-accused No.2 Prashant. Thus, considering the entire aspect
of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Hence following order :
ORDER
The application is hereby rejected.
(V. K. JADHAV, J.) ...
vmk/-
::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 03:43:23 :::