Bombay High Court
Kalim Rauf Sayyed vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2024
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2024:BHC-AS:21981
909-ba-3790-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3790 OF 2023
Kalim Rauf Sayyed ...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani, for the Applicant.
Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP, for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Mahesh Mugatrao, Santacruz Division, Mumbai.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : APRIL 25, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : MAY 09, 2024
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned
APP for the State.
2. The applicant, who is arraigned in MCOCA Special Case No. 4
of 2014, arising out of FIR bearing C.R. No. 175 of 2014 registered
with Santacruz police station for the offences punishable under
sections 120-B, 143, 144, 145, 149, 450, 387, 452, 307 and 506(2)
of Indian Penal Code, 1860; section 3(1)(2), 3(2) and 3(4) of the
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and
section 4 read with 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 has preferred this
application for bail.
3. The genesis of the prosecution is in an incident which
allegedly occurred on 1st March, 2014. The first informant was
Vishal Parekar ...1
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2024 22:50:01 :::
909-ba-3790-2023.doc
working as a Site Manager with HDIL at its office at Daulat Nagar,
Santacruz (w), Mumbai. Since, November, 2013 Zulfikar Behlim,
the alleged gang leader, was visiting the said office to extort a sum
of Rs. 8 lakhs purportedly to release his brother who was
incarcerated in a prosecution.
4. On 1st March, 2014 at about 3.45 pm, 15-20 armed persons
wearing scarfs, masks and caps barged into the said site office of
HDIL. Trespassers broke the glass door. They ransacked the
premises. A security guard fired a warning shot in the air.
Thereupon, those persons fled away. It was alleged that few of the
persons who were present at the said site office could be identified
their masks had slipped of.
5. Eventually, 19 persons were tried in MCOCA Special Case No.
4 of 2014, 18 of 2015, 23 of 2015 and 5 of 2017. By a judgment and
order dated 28th August, 2019, accused No. 13 Zulfikar Behlim was
convicted for an offence under section 387 of the Penal Code.
Accused No. 13 Zulfikar Behlim, accused No. 10 Mavia Khan,
accused No. 11 Asif Jindaran and accused No. 12 Ajmal Khan were
found guilty of the offences punishable under section 3 of the
MCOCA. Rest of the accused were acquitted.
6. The applicant contended that he was unaware of being
implicated as an accused in the said crime. Since the applicant was
Vishal Parekar ...2
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2024 22:50:01 :::
909-ba-3790-2023.doc
incarcerated in another case and applicant came to know about the
pendency of the instant prosecution, the applicant filed an
application before the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, the
applicant came to be arrested in this case on 21st April, 2022.
Hence, this application for bail.
7. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the State. It was
contended that the applicant was shown as an absconding accused
at Serial No. 20. The material on record, especially the confessional
statement of the three co-accused, indicate the role of the applicant.
The applicant is a habitual offender and in the event of release on
bail, there is likelihood of the applicant absconding and fleeing away
from justice.
8. Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani, the learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the first informant did not name the applicant as the
person who attempted to commit extortion and barged into the
premises of HDIL. Nor was the applicant named in the evidence of
the first informant recorded before the Special Court. After a lapse
of about 8 years, on 23 rd April, 2024, after the arrest of the
applicant, a supplementary statement (page 850) of the first
informant came to be recorded and the applicant was sought to be
implicated, on the basis of the built and gait of the applicant as it
matched with one of the persons in the CCTV footage.
Vishal Parekar ...3
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2024 22:50:01 :::
909-ba-3790-2023.doc
9. It was submitted that none of the eye witnesses named the
applicant as one of the trespassers. Though the applicant has been
named as an accomplice in the confessional statements of the co-
accused yet, the same cannot be used as the applicant and the co-
accused can not be said to be facing trial together. Mr. Bhawnani
further submitted that though the applicant has antecedents, he
cannot be roped in as member of the organized crime syndicate as
the only commonality between the crimes registered against the
applicant and the crimes registered against the organized crime
syndicate was C.R. No. 294 of 2016, subsequent to the present
offence. Therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
10. Mr. Pethe, the learned APP, fairly submitted that the legal
position that the confessional statement of the co-accused recorded
under section 18 of the MCOCA can be used against the non-maker
co-accused only when they are tried in the same case together can
not be controverted. Mr. Pethe again fairly submitted that no test
identification parade was conducted to confirm the identity of the
applicant as one of the trespassers who had barged into the site
office of HDIL.
11. I have carefully perused the material on record. Prima facie, it
appears that the staff in the office of HDIL had not known the
persons who had barged into the site office of HDIL. To add to this,
Vishal Parekar ...4
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2024 22:50:01 :::
909-ba-3790-2023.doc
the question as to whether those witnesses had an opportunity to
see the features of all the trespassers, when they were allegedly 20
in number, appears contentious. The witnesses have stated that
those persons were wearing scarf and masks. The prosecution
alleges that the witnesses could identity four of those persons as
their masks had fallen of. The applicant was not one of those four
persons. No test identification parade was held, even after arrest of
the applicant, to establish his identity as one of the persons who
had committed the house trespass.
12. The only material which the prosecution presses into service
is the supplementary statement of the first informant recorded on
21st April, 2022, wherein the first informant states that the
applicant was one of the persons who accompanied the other
accused when they had visited the office of HDIL to demand
extortion prior to 1st March, 2014. The identification of the
applicant in the supplementary statement also appears to be prima
facie infirm as the applicant was sought to be identified on the basis
of the built and gait and comparing the same with the persons seen
in the CCTV footages. Evidently, the applicant was shown to the first
informant in the police station. Such identification, prima facie, is of
no avail to the prosecution.
13. In the aforesaid view of the matter, though certain crimes
Vishal Parekar ...5
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2024 22:50:01 :::
909-ba-3790-2023.doc
have been registered against the applicant and he is facing
prosecution for the same, yet, prima facie, there is no material to
establish the nexus of the applicant with the alleged offences. It also
appears that whether the applicant was a member of organized
crime syndicate led by accused No. 13 Zulfikar Behlim, the alleged
gang leader, appears to be a matter for adjudication at the trial.
14. In the totality of the circumstances, the interdict contained in
section 21 of the MCOCA may not be attracted. I am, therefore,
inclined to allow the application.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1] The application stands allowed.
2] The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No. 175 of 2014 registered with Santacruz police station, on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
3] The applicant shall mark his presence at Santacruz police station on the first Monday of every month between 11 am to 1 pm for a period of three years or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.
4] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and give threat or inducement to first informant, Vishal Parekar ...6 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2024 22:50:01 ::: 909-ba-3790-2023.doc any of the prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
5] The applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the investigating officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. 6] The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.
7] By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of the entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
Application disposed.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
Vishal Parekar ...7
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2024 22:50:01 :::