Bombay High Court
Shaikh Salim S/O Shaikh Amir vs Mohd. Rizwan S/O Mohd. Rafiq And Another on 7 June, 2022
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
{1} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO.283 OF 2022
WITH
APPLN/1265/2022 IN BA/283/2022
Mohammad Rizwan S/o. Mohd. Rafi ..Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
...
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.284 OF 2022
WITH
APPLN/1266/2022 IN BA/284/2022
1. Rizwan Khan S/o. Shafi Khan
2. Abu Ali Choush S/o. Amjad Chaush ..Applicants
VERSUS
. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Applicant in BA/283/2022 : Mr.G.R. Syed
Advocate for Applicants in BA/284/2022 : Mr.N.S.Ghaneiar
APP for Respondent : Mr.V.M.Kagne
Advocate for Informant : Mr.S.R.Pande
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 11th April, 2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 7th June, 2022
ORDER :-
1. Criminal Applications fled for assist to Public Prosecutors are allowed.
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 :::
{2} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
2. The applicants in both the bail applications have been arrested in connection with Crime No.0139 of 2021, registered with Kotwali Police Station, Dist.Parbhani, for the ofence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 109, 143, 147, 148, 149, 336, 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act, under Sections 37(1), 37(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as "the MCOC Act"). They have been posed as accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the First Information Report (FIR). Initially, when the FIR was registered, it was under sections of the IPC, Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act. Later on, the ofences under the MCOC Act were came to be added. Now, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been fled before the learned Special Court under the MCOC Act. The present applications have been fled under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Heard Mr.G.R.Syed, learned Advocate for the applicant in Bail Application No.283 of 2022, Mr.N.S.Ghaneiar, learned Advocate for the applicants in Bail Application No.284 of 2022, Mr.V.M.Kagne, learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr.S.R.Pande, learned Advocate for the original informant. ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 :::
{3} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicants that injured Imran in this case is having criminal baciground. The FIR has been lodged by his friend Shaiih Salim Shaiih Amir. He is accused in complaint lodged by brother-in-law of the son of applicant in Bail Application No.283 of 2022. He has suppressed the fact that infact injured Imran had planned the attaci on the applicant Mohammad Rizwan Mohd. Rafi. He was holding pistol and he had infact fred towards the applicant and therefore, in the said FIR fled vide Crime No.147 of 2021, ofence under Section 307 etc. of the IPC came to be registered against Imran as well as informant Shaiih Salim. Further, these two persons were also booied in another Crime No.138 of 2021 which had occurred by about one hour prior to the alleged incident. At that time, accused Imran had opened the bullet fre on road towards somebody, however in that process, he had damaged the car of the informant in Crime No.138 of 2021. That fact has also been suppressed by the present informant Shaiih Salim. The applicants are innocent. Even as per the prosecution story, the entire material has been collected and there is no iuestion of further interrogation of the applicants. The charge- sheet includes the orders under Sections 23(1)(a) and 23(2) of the MCOC Act which infact runs into 1000 pages but does not satisfy the test of Section 2(e) of the MCOC Act. There is no such ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {4} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
crime which can be said to have been committed by the applicants as member of organised crime. None of them have received any fnancial benefts. Therefore, the provisions of the MCOC Act are not applicable here. Co-accused has been released on bail by the learned Special judge and therefore, on the ground of parity also the applicants deserve to be released on bail.
5. The learned Advocates for the applicants relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah [2008 (8) Supreme 372] wherein it was observed that "The object of MCOCA is to prevent the organised crime and a perusal of the provisions of the Act under challenge would indicate that the said law authorizes the interception of wire, electronic or oral communication only if it is intended to prevent the commission of an organised crime or if it is intended to collect the evidence to the commission of such an organized crime." The constitutional validity of Sections 13 to 16 of the MCOC Act was upheld in this case. However, while taiing note of Section 2 of MCOC Act, following observations have been made :
"8. Section 2 of the MCOCA contains the defnitions. The word "abet" is defned in clause (a) of sub-Section (1) to mean and include the communication or association with any person with the actual knowledge or having reason to ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {5} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
believe that such person is engaged in assisting in any manner, an organized crime syndicate, the passing on or publication of, without any lawful authority any information likely to assist the organized crime syndicate and the passing on or publication of or distribution of any document or matter obtained from the organized crime syndicate and also rendering of any assistance whether fnancial or otherwise, to the organised crime syndicate. Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) defnes the expression "continuing unlawful activity" to mean an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable ofence punishable with imprisonment of three years of more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge sheets have been fled before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such ofence. Clause
(e) of sub-Section (1) defnes the expression "organised crime" to mean any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefts, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency. The term "organised crime syndicate" is defned under clause (f) of sub- Section (1) to mean a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime."::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 :::
{6} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
6. The learned Advocate for the applicant in Bail Application No.283 of 2022 has relied on bunch of decisions of the Division Bench of this Court. In the case of Sherbahadur Akram khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra [MANU/MH/0938/2006] it is held that "the prosecution under the MCOC Act is not maintainable. The accused only can be prosecuted under the general law i.e. Indian Penal Code when there is no evidence which could be seen that has given any pecuniary or undue economic or other advantage to the accused himself or to any other person". The ratio in State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Baburao Gavhane and Ors [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2895] was confrmed. The other citations which have been relied by the learned Advocate are as follows :
1. Bhupendra @ Golu s/o. Suryakant Borkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Ajni, Nagpur [Order passed on 19.08.2016 in Criminal Application (BA) No. 608 of 2016].
2. Ganesh Janardhan Gore alias Ganya Vs. State of Maharashtra [Order passed on 01.11.2018 in Criminal Bail Application No. 93 of 2018].
3. Sonya Shaikh @ Jalaluddin Nijamuddin Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Order passed on 24.02.2021 in Criminal Bail Application No.940 of 2020].
4. Sachin s/o. Namdeo Rathod and others Vs. State of Maharashtra [Judgment passed on 27.11.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 2018,].::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 :::
{7} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
5. Shri Girish Kumaran Nayar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra [Judgment passed on 17.02.2021 in Bail Application No. 2241 of 2018,].
6. Sambhaji s/o. Pandurang Sathe Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Order passed on 20.12.2019 in Bail Application No. 1454 of 2019,].
7. Kamal s/o. Ganeshlal Yadav Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Order passed on 20.12.2019 in Bail Application No. 1517 of 2019,].
8. Mangesh Manik Kanchan Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Order passed on 13.07.2015 in Bail Application No. 1696 of 2014 and connected matter]
9. Madan s/o. Ramkisan Gangwani (dead) - Shamsundar s/o. Ramkisan Gangwani Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Judgment passed on 26.03.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2022 and connected matters].
10. State Vs. Satya Prakash (Order passed on 03.11.2011 in Cr.M.C. No. 2138 of 2010).
11. Vinayak s/o. Gopalsa Satpute Versus The State of Maharashtra [Order passed on 11.10.2021 in Bail Application No. 239 of 2021].
7. In all these cases, taiing into consideration the facts of the case, this Court either learned Single Bench or Hon'ble Division Bench have allowed the Bail Applications of the respective ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {8} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
applicants. Various authorities have been considered in all the above said pronouncements. However, even at this stage, it can be said that some of those orders can be distinguished taiing into consideration the facts of the case as well as mainly that in some of the cases there was no previous criminal antecedents or charge-sheet fled against those applicants or the concerned Benches hold that there was no direct evidence against the applicants. In Criminal Appeal No.732 of 2018 it was found that no immediate actions were taien for invoiing the provisions of the MCOC Act and since June 2018 even the charge-sheet was also not fled till November, 2018. Other lapses were found by this Court and then it was held that those lapses are hampering the liberty of the applicants under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, in the bunch of cases in Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2002 and companion matters, they were the appeals and already the evidence was before the Court for the assessment. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of State Vs. Satya Prakash [MANU/DE/4298/2011] has held that "as per Section 2(1)(e) of the MCOC Act, it was mandatory that two cases against said person should have been registered under provisions, wherein, there was a direct or indirect pecuniary gain out of crime. In absence of that, provisions of MCOC Act did not apply". The view taien in the case of Satya Prakash (supra) ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {9} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
appears to be a contrary view taien by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya and Another (supra). These authorities can be further elaborated later on taiing into consideration the facts of the present cases.
8. At the cost of repetition, it can be said that the tenor of the submissions on behalf of the learned Advocates for the applicants is that there is no previous case involving pecuniary gain against the applicants and therefore, the provisions of the MCOC Act will not be applicable. They, therefore, prayed for release of the applicants on bail.
9. Per contra, the learned APP well assisted by learned Advocate for the informant submitted that perusal of the entire charge-sheet would show that there is ample evidence against the three applicants. Apart from the injured Imran himself and also the informant, who had received injuries, there are eye witnesses to the incident as well as there is CCTV footage by the near-by CCTV clearly depicting the specifc role attributed to accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Even if we consider the earlier alleged act on the part of the injured Imran, that does not give the applicants any right to taie law in hand. It cannot be said that whatever act that has been done by the applicants was the part of right of private defence because the events those have been ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {10} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
stated would show that it was the single act alleged in the FIR. Cross complaint will not give any advantage to the applicants. The contents of the charge-sheet would show that there is evidence to the efect that Rizwan Khan Shaiih Khan is the gang leader and he has members of his gang who have committed ofences in the area of Kotwali as well as Nanal Peth Police Station of Parbhani. His modus operandi is to include new members in his team and to create sufcient organization to create terror in the mind of general public. They are indulged in ofences against body, ofences against Public Ofcers and also against Police by abusing them, threatening them with inife, sword, iron rod etc. His gang wanted to establish its own position in the area. There are about 11 cognizable and 3 non- cognizable ofences registered in the last 10 years against the members of the gang and by giving a detailed order, permission has been granted by the competent authority for taiing action under the MCOC Act. Even in the present case, act of each of the applicants can be seen from the statements of the witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the confessional statement under Section 18, which has been voluntarily given, the WhatsApp messages, phone calls etc. in between them. Further Rizwan Khan Shafi Khan i.e. gang leader has bani account in HDFC Bani, Station Road Branch, ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {11} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
Parbhani in which he has savings of Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.22,00,000/-.
10. As regards applicant Abu Ali Chaush Amjad Chaush is concerned, apart from specifc role attributed to him in the present crime, there is evidence against him of discovery of inife under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He has one cognizable ofence registered against him apart from other electronic evidence.
11. As against applicant Mohammad Rizwan Mohd. Rafi apart from his involvement in the present crime that he had assaulted the victim Imran with sword, there are other evidence in the nature of discovery and about three cognizable and one non- cognizable ofences are registered against him. He has also given confessional statement under Section 18 of the MCOC Act. He is also involved in getting land in his name under a Sale-deed by showing a very less price and by threatening the owner. Statement of that witness has been recorded. All these activities are being carried out by gang leader to establish their supremacy and therefore, their activities will have to be curbed. In the case of Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya and another (supra), the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held that "we answer the issue that the terms "other advantage" cannot be ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {12} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
read as ejusdem generis with the words "pecuniary benefts" and "undue economic." Therefore, the law is crystal clear on the point that it is not necessary that the activity of the gang member should be to have pecuniary advantage only. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Govind Sakharam Ubhe Vs. State of Maharashtra [2009 (3) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 144] held as under :
"35. It is now necessary to go to the defnition of continuing unlawful activity. Section 2(1)(d) defnes continuing unlawful activity to mean an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable ofence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been fled before a Competent Court within the preceding ten years and that court have taken cognizance of such ofence. Thus, for an activity to be a 'continuing unlawful activity' -
a) the activity must be prohibited by law;
b) it must be a cognizable ofence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more;
c) it must be undertaken singly or jointly;
d) it must be undertaken as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {13} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
e) in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been fled before a competent court.
36. The words in respect of which more than one charge- sheet have been fled cannot go with the words a member of a crime syndicate' because in that case, these words would have read as in respect of whom more than one charge-sheet have been fled'."
12. Therefore, it is not necessary that more than one charge- sheet should have been fled against each member of the gang or crime syndicate. Taiing into consideration role played by the present applicants also and the ofence has been committed in broad day light in order to establish supremacy, there is prima- facie case against the applicants and therefore, they do not deserve to be released on bail.
13. At the outset, as regards the issue that for some economic advantage or for pecuniary advantage the gang should have been established or should receive the benefts is not the basic criteria and the view taien by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya and another (supra) has been endorsed recently by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhishek Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.869 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1157 of 2022, decided on 20 th May, 2022 wherein it has been observed as under : ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 :::
{14} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
"We have no hesitation in endorsing the views of Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya (supra). Looking to the object and purpose of this enactment, the expression other advantage cannot be read in a restrictive manner and is required to be given its full efect. The High Court has rightly said that there could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or beneft but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself."
14. Therefore, any contrary decision by this Court in the above referred decisions cited on behalf of the applicants cannot be made applicable here now in view of the recent decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further in view of the decision in Govind Sakharam Ubhe (supra), it is not even necessary that there should be more than one charge-sheet fled against all the accused persons. Here in this case the prosecution's case is that there are about 11 cognizable and 3 non-cognizable ofences are registered against the members of Rizwan Khan Shafi Khan gang. Under such circumstance, there is no necessity to go in much deep as to whether the provisions of the MCOC Act are attracted or not.
15. Turning to the merits of the case, no doubt there appears to be a cross complaint vide Crime No.147 of 2021. It is to be ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {15} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
noted that the said FIR came to be lodged on 4th July, 2021 on the basis of the complaint lodged by applicant Rizwan Khan Shafi Khan. However, that is in respect of incident dated 24 th June, 2021 and perusal of the said FIR would show that he has not given any reason for the delay in lodging the FIR. The FIR in present case has been lodged promptly on 25 th June, 2021 at about 02:07 hours in respect of incident that had occurred at about 14:45 hours on 24th June, 2021. In the FIR also specifc role has been attributed to the applicants. It is stated that applicant Mohammad Rizwan @ MR had come running infront of house of one Syed Maulana where the informant Shaiih Salim and the informant Imran had stopped as Imran had received a phone call. Mohammad Rizwan @ MR started saying that why Imran had chased Ali Chaush. He caused Imran to lie down on the ground and at that time applicants Ali Chaush and Rizwan Khan Shafi Khan came running. Ali Chaush was holding inife and Rizwan Khan was holding sword. Mohammad Rizwan tooi the sword from the hands of Rizwan Khan and gave blows on Imran. At that time, Mohammad Rizwan's father came and he threw stones towards Imran. Informant than ran away from that spot and called Imran's brother. After certain persons came, the assailants fed away. The investigation is over and the statements of the witnesses can be seen from the charge-sheet. ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 :::
{16} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
Apart from statement of the informant, eye witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is also evidence in the nature of statements of injured Imran under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Statement of injured Imran would show that he was assaulted by Mohammad Rizwan by sword and Rizwan Khan has also assaulted him resulting in cutting of his last fngure. Mohammad Rizwan has given him 10 to 15 assaults of sword causing injury to his hands, legs and baci. Applicant Abu Ali Chaush had stabbed him with inife on his baci. If we consider the Medico Legal Certifcate then it mentions about eight injuries out of which six injures are grievous injuries possible by sharp and pointed object and two injuries are simple injuries. There was also fracture to his Tibia Fibula. There is further evidence in the nature of statement of one Mohammad Shaiil Ansari s/o Mohammad Mahemood Ansari in consonance with the statement of injured Imran as well as the informant. Further evidence that has been collected in the form of bani account statements, criminal history and involvement of the applicants and other accused in various crimes etc.
16. The applicants are also relying upon the FIR lodged by one Shaiih Ismail Shaiih Yunus vide Crime No.138 of 2021, registered with Kotwali Police Station, Dist.Parbhani, for the ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {17} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
ofence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 4, 7 punishable with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. In this FIR, it has been stated by the said informant that he alongwith his friend had come to Parbhani for attending marriage ceremony in his four wheeler. They were near Primary Health Center for coming towards Darga. At that time, one white colour Activa came in high speed from opposite direction. Activa gave dash to a boy who was selling Balloons. The Scooter Driver as well as pillion rider fell down and many people gathered. This informant Shaiih Ismail stopped his car and watching the activities. He states that certain persons from the mob started capturing rider as well as pillion rider of Activa but the pillion rider started opening fre rounds in the air. People thereafter got frightened and get themselves away and those two persons then managed to fee away from the spot. The pillion rider, thereafter, in order to avoid chasing, opened fre and one bullet hit the right side door of car of the informant. He came to inow from the people that the person, who had opened the fre, is Shaiih Imran Shaiih Amir and the driver of the vehicle was Shaiih Salim Shaiih Amir. Even if we taie the contents of the said FIR as it is, it will not give any advantage to the applicants. The law will taie course against the accused named therein but none of the applicants herein were present at the ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {18} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
said spot when the said informant Shaiih Ismail was present and was complaining about the incident.
17. Now, that belated FIR No.147 of 2021 lodged by the applicant Rizwan Khan Shafi Khan will have to be considered as he wanted to taie advantage of the FIR lodged by Shaiih Ismail. Applicant Rizwan Khan states that he alongwith his friends were near Kadrabad plot at about 02:00 p.m.. He received a phone call from Abu Ali Chaush stating that Shaiih Imran and Shaiih Salim were chasing him because of some earlier dispute by holding pistol in their hand and therefore, he should come to Darga Road. Rizwan Khan alongwith Asef Khan came near Darga but they were not able to fnd Abu Ali Chaush. On phone call he got location of Abu Ali Chaush near Parva gate. At that place, Abu Ali Chaush met Rizwan Khan and disclosed that after abusing him, Shaiih Imran and Shaiih Salim had showed him pistol and therefore, he started running. Then, they had fred near Darga. Applicant Rizwan Khan again says that he, Abu Ali Chause, Asef Khan and Zia Inamdar were coming towards Abu Ali Chause's house at about 02:45 p.m. They met Shaiih Imran and Shaiih Salim and it was found that Shaiih Imran and Shaiih Salim were assaulting Mohammad Rizwan and his father near the house of Maulana Syed by showing pistol. When the others went to rescue, Shaiih Imran had opened fre from the pistol but it did ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 ::: {19} BA 283 OF 2022 & ORS.
not cause any injury to anybody. However, all of them then fed away from that spot. At the cost of repetition, it can be mentioned that the said alleged cross complaint is belated and has been lodged after Rizwan Khan was arrested by Police from Manwat. No advantage can be given to him at this stage in respect of that FIR.
18. Thus, it can be seen that there is prima-facie evidence to support the charge for the ofence under the provisions of MCOC Act as well as independently there is evidence against the present applicants. They have taien active part in the crime and taiing into consideration the baciground, possibility of similar ofence by them after their release on bail cannot be ruled out and therefore, this cannot be taien as a ft case to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, Bail Applications stand rejected.
( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ) JUDGE SPT ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2022 10:36:02 :::