Bombay High Court
Sunil Kadu Shinde vs Walmik Baburao Karad And Another on 17 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:36546
*1* 952apeal693o25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.693 OF 2025
Walmik Baburao Karad,
Age : 54 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Shri Ganesh Nivas,
Maasaheb Nagar, Parali Vaijyanath,
Taluka Parali, District Beed-431515.
(At present in Beed district prison).
...Appellant
- versus -
The State of Maharashtra.
Through Kaij Police Station.
...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4217 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.693 OF 2025
Shivraj Limbraj Deshmukh,
Age : 42 years, Occ : Agriculture,
R/o Massajog, Tal. Kaij,
Dist. Beed.
... Applicant/
(Orig. informant/ victim)
- versus -
1. Walmik Baburao Karad,
Age : 54 years, Occu : Agri,
R/o Ganesh Nivas, Maasaheb Nagar,
Parali Vaijnath, Tq. Parli,
Dist. Beed.
*2* 952apeal693o25
2. The State of Maharashtra.
Through Police Inspector,
Kaij Police Station,
Dist. Beed.
... Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4391 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.693 OF 2025
Sunil Kadu Shinde,
Age : 42 years, Occu : Service,
R/o Dwarka Residency,
Behind Upanagar Police Station,
Dwarka, Nashik Road, Nashik.
... Applicant/ Intervener
- versus -
1. Walmik Baburao Karad,
Age : 54 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Shri Ganesh Nivas,
Maasaheb Nagar, Parali Vaijyanath,
Taluka Parali, District Beed-431515.
(At present in Beed district prison).
2. The State of Maharashtra.
Through Kaij Police Station.
...Respondents
...
Shri Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate along with Shri Styavrat
Joshi, Shri Ashish R. Kachole, Ms. Shivani Kondekar and Shri
Vikas Khade i/by Shri Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the
appellant.
Shri A.B. Girase, Public Prosecutor along with Shri Sachin
*3* 952apeal693o25
Salgare, APP, for the respondent/ State.
Shri Mishra Ashutosh L., advocate for respondent No.2 in Appeal
and for the applicant in Cri. Application No.4391/2025.
Shri Nitin V. Gaware Patil, advocate along with Shri Dhananjay
S. Patil, advocate for the applicant in Cri. Application
No.4217/2025.
...
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
DATE : 17 December, 2025
Per Court :-
1. Heard.
2. For the reasons stated in the applications, Criminal
Application Nos.4217/2025 and 4391/2025 are allowed.
3. By this appeal filed under Section 12 of the
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short,
'the Act'), the appellant prays for grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with Special MCOC Case No.56/2025 pending
before the learned Special Judge, Beed. The said case is arising
from the following three FIRs registered with Kaij Police
Station, District Beed:-
*4* 952apeal693o25
Sr. Crime No. Date of Complainant Registered for the
No. Registration offences punishable
under Sections
1. 636/2024 06.12.2024 Shivaji Nana 333, 118/1, 115(2), 352,
Thopate 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of
BNS with Sections 3(1)
(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the
Atrocities Act.
2. 637/2024 09.12.2024 Shivraj 103(1), 140(1), 126(2),
Limbraj 118(1), 324(4)(5),
Deshmukh 189(2), 191(2), 190,
61(2), 51, 52, 238, 3(5)
of the BNS with
Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii),
3(2) and 3(4) of the Act
3. 638/2024 11.12.2024 Sunil Kadu 308(3), 308(4), 238, 3(5)
Shinde of BNS.
PROSECUTION STORY
4. The story of the prosecution is as under:-
a) M/s Avaada Energy Pvt. Ltd. is a company
operating a Wind Power Project in Beed District, having its
office at Massajog, Taluka Kaij, District Beed.
(b) On 28.08.2024, the appellant (Walmik Karad),
threatened the officers of the Avaada Company and directed them
to stop the work and further instructed them to meet him.
(c) On 11.09.2024, the appellant again threatened the
*5* 952apeal693o25
officer of Avaada Company and instructed them to inform the
senior officers of the company to attend the office of appellant.
The officers of Avaada Company informed about the threat given
by appellant (Walmik Karad) to higher officers of the company.
(d) On 08.10.2024, due to the threat given by appellant,
the officers of Avaada Company met at Parali with appellant and
co-accused Vishnu Chate. In the said meeting, the appellant
demanded an amount of Rs.2 Crores as extortion and threatened
to shut down the entire work of company. The said incident was
informed to higher officers of the company by the local officer at
Beed. The appellant also threatened the officers of company and
demanded the extortion of Rs. 2 cr. There was continuous
demand of extortion of Rs. 2 Crores to the officers of the
company by appellant and his associates.
(e) On 26.11.2024, as per the instructions of appellant
Walmik Karad, co-accused Sudharshan Ghule visited the office
of company and threatened the officers that, if they fail to pay an
amount of Rs. 2 crores, then, appellant Walmik Karad would not
allow them to work anywhere in Beed District.
(f) Again on 29.11.2024, appellant Walmik Karad and
*6* 952apeal693o25
his associates threatened the officers of company to stop the
work or pay the amount of Rs. 2 crores. All the accused met on
29.11.2024 at Kaij and hatched the conspiracy.
(g) As per the directions of appellant Walmik Karad,
accused Sudarshan Ghule entered the premises of Avaada
Company and threatened the officers to pay an amount of Rs. 2
Crores as demanded by the appellant. He further warned that if
they failed to comply with the said demand, they would not be
allowed to continue the company's work in Beed District and
also put the officers in fear of death for non-compliance. Accused
Sudarshan Ghule further threatened the officers of company,
instructing them to meet the appellant at Kaij immediately. As
per the threat given by Sudarshan Ghule, an officer of the
company, met accused Walmik Karad on the same date. During
the meeting, Walmik Karad again demanded extortion amount
and threatened the company representatives with dire
consequences if the amount is not paid.
(h) On 06.12.2024, appellant Walmik Karad gave
instructions to co-accused Sudarshan Ghule, and based on those
directions, the co-accused Sudarshan Ghule, Pratik Ghule and
*7* 952apeal693o25
Sudhir Sangale attempted to criminal trespass the company office
at Massajog. When the company's watchmen, tried to stop them,
in response, the accused threatened the watchmen, voluntarily
caused them hurt, and, by way of criminal trespass, entered the
premises with the intention of assaulting the company officers.
During the incident, accused Sudarshan Ghule, Pratik Ghule, and
Sudhir Sangale assaulted company's watchmen, verbally abused
them with caste-based remarks, claiming affiliation to the
appellant Walmik Karad and Vishnu Chate.
(i) On 06.12.2024, the accused Sudarshan Ghule and
his companions, after committing criminal trespass into the
company premises, threatened the officers of company and put
them in fear in order to extort Rs. 2 Crores, as demanded by
appellant Walmik Karad. This incident constitutes criminal
trespass, extortion, and criminal intimidation. During the said
incident, the victim, Santosh Deshmukh, Sarpanch of Village
Massajog, requested accused Sudarshan Ghule and his
companions not to close the company, as it is generating
employment to the villagers. In response, Sudarshan Ghule and
others threatened Santosh Deshmukh, stating that they would not
*8* 952apeal693o25
spare him and would kill him.
(j) After the incident dated 06.12.2024, following the
intervention of the victim, Santosh Deshmukh, Sarpanch, and
other villagers, the police entered the premises to restrain
Sudarshan Ghule and his companions.
(k) The records clearly show that there were continuous
communications among the accused Vishnu Chate, Sudarshan
Ghule, and Walmik Karad on 06.12.2024. There were continuous
threat calls from the accused Vishnu Chate to Santosh Deshmukh
in view of his intervention during the incident of extortion at
company premises by persons acting under the instructions of
appellant Walmik Karad. The accused Vishnu Chate threatened
Santosh Deshmukh for intervening in the work of appellant
Walmik Karad.
(l) On 08.12.2024, the accused Vishnu Chate again
called Santosh Deshmukh and threatened him for intervening
with the people of appellant Walmik Karad, further issued
warning that the appellant would not spare him and would
commit his murder.
*9* 952apeal693o25
On 08.12.2024, as per one witness who attended dinner
with the accused Sudarshan Ghule and Vishnu Chate, during
which the accused Vishnu Chate communicated a message from
appellant Walmik Karad to teach Santosh Deshmukh a lesson for
intervening with his men while collecting extortion and further
instructed that he should be killed. The message clearly indicated
that everyone in Beed District should be warned, and that anyone
who interferes with the appellant's men would face serious
consequences.
(m) On 09.12.2024, when the victim, along with
complainant Shivraj Deshmukh, was traveling towards
Massajog, Taluka Kaij, they were obstructed at the toll plaza at
Dongaon Phata by a black Scorpio car. The accused Sudarshan
Ghule, Krushna Andhale, Pratik Ghule, Sudhir Sangale, Jairam
Chate and Mahesh Kedar alighted from the vehicle and blocked
their way. They broke open the glass of the vehicle of Sarpanch
Santosh Deshmukh and began assaulting him. Following this
wrongful restraint, they kidnapped the victim (Santosh
Deshmukh) using the black Scorpio car bearing registration
number MH44-2933, and drove towards Kaij. This incident was
*10* 952apeal693o25
witnessed by the complainant and some of the witnesses. That,
during the assault and kidnapping, the accused allegedly stated
that people should now realize the consequences of attempting to
intervene or oppose Walmik Anna (Karad) i.e. appellant.
(n) After kidnapping of the Sarpanch Santosh
Deshmukh, the accused Sudarshan Ghule, Krushna Andhale,
Pratik Ghule, Mahesh Kedar and Jayram Chate brutally assaulted
him, resulting in multiple injuries. There are 23 video clips
documenting this assault, clearly showing the brutality inflicted
upon Santosh Deshmukh by these individuals. These video clips
were seized from the mobiles of the accused, and the forensic lab
report confirms that the injured person is Santosh Deshmukh,
while the assailants are identified as Pratik Ghule, Jayram Chate,
Mahesh Kedar, Sudarshan Ghule, and Sudhir Sangale.
(o) During the brutal assault on Santosh Deshmukh,
accused Krushna Andhale made a WhatsApp call to the group
named 'Mokarpanti' (English meaning irresponsible) wherein
several persons witnessed the live assault on Santosh Deshmukh.
(p) The records clearly show that immediately after the
kidnapping, Dhananjay Deshmukh, brother of the victim Santosh
*11* 952apeal693o25
Deshmukh, made two phone calls to appellant Walmik Karad
requesting to release his brother. The accused Vishnu Chate
assured Dhananjay Deshmukh that his brother would be released
after some time. The electronic records collected during the
investigation indicate that the appellant Walmik Karad was the
mastermind of the entire incident and remained in continuous
contact with the accused Vishnu Chate.
(q) The body of Santosh Deshmukh was found near
Daithana Phata, thereafter, the Medical Officer, Kaij declared
him as dead after medical examination.
(r) Based on these allegations, the prosecution invoked
provisions of the Act, alleging that the accused persons were part
of a continuing organized crime syndicate with the appellant
being a boss.
5. After registration of the offences, the criminal law
was set into motion. When the appellant himself surrendered
before the Police Authorities at Pune on 31.12.2024, he came to
be arrested and since then he is behind bars. After investigation,
the investigating agencies filed the consolidated charge-sheet in
all three F.I.R.s bearing C.R. Nos. 636 of 2024, 637 of 2024 and
*12* 952apeal693o25
638 of 2024 registered at Kaij Police Station, Beed. Thus, the
case is numbered as Special MCOCA Case No. 56 of 2025. The
appellant thereafter preferred the Bail Application before learned
Sessions Judge, Beed, however, same is rejected vide order dated
30.08.2025. Hence, this appeal for seeking regular bail.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT
6. Shri Gupte, the learned senior advocate appearing
for appellant submitted that at the time of arrest, the appellant
has not been communicated the written grounds of arrest.
According to him, the prosecution is relying on the grounds of
arrest communicated to one Rohit Kamble claiming to be his
close associate. The said Rohit Kamble has never been
nominated or no where concerned with the appellant. Shri Gupte
has taken me through various judgments delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and
others, (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, (2025) 5
SCC 799 and Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and
another, 2025 SCC Online SC 2356, so as to point out that the
grounds of arrest are required to be communicated in writing to
*13* 952apeal693o25
the accused at the time of arrest or prior to two hours before
producing him before the learned Magistrate. Shri Gupte,
therefore, submitted that non communicating the grounds of
arrest to the appellant is violative of his fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. As
such, the appellant has been detained illegally and requires to be
released on bail immediately.
7. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Gupte further
submitted that the police authorities have proceeded to file the
consolidated charge-sheet covering three distinct FIRs i.e. Crime
Nos.636/2024, 637/2024 and 638/2024. According to him, prior
approval under Section 23(1)(a) as well as sanction under
Section 23(2) of the Act came to be obtained only in Crime
No.637/2024. Therefore, the police authorities by incorporating
other crimes in which sanction is not obtained, have committed
serious illegality and thus, the prosecution is void in the eyes of
law.
8. Shri Gupte further submitted that the prosecution is
further relying upon 19 previous crimes registered against the
appellant to establish continuing unlawful activity defined under
*14* 952apeal693o25
Section 2(d) of the Act. However, the crimes at Sr.Nos.1 to 10 of
the list have been registered more than 10 years ago and,
therefore, they fall out of the statutory period. Other crimes have
either been disposed of or does not qualify for statutory check
period or check list. There are no previous charge-sheets on
record against the appellant in respect of offences punishable
with more than three years imprisonment, so also, there is no
material on record to show that the competent Court has taken
cognizance of more than one such charge-sheet against the
appellant within the preceding ten years. Therefore, there is no
reasonable nexus connecting the appellant to attract the
provisions of the Act. According to Shri Gupte, the power to
consolidate the FIRs and to permit joint trial vests only in the
Court and not in the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the police
authorities ought not to have filed consolidated charge-sheet
without specific direction under the provisions of the Act.
9. Shri Gupte also vehemently argued that the
prosecution is relying upon the statements of certain accused
recorded under Section 18 of the Act. According to him, the said
statements do not attribute any active or passive involvement of
*15* 952apeal693o25
the appellant in commission of the alleged offences. The
appellant is not at all connected with the crime and admittedly, he
was not on the spot when the incident of abduction and killing
took place. There is no material to suggest that the appellant in
anyway is connected with the crime. Shri Gupte further
submitted that evidence against the appellant is doubtful and
deliberately created in order to frame him. The reports of the
Chemical Analyzer and the Forensic Laboratory are fabricated
and, therefore, the prosecution itself is impermissible against the
appellant. The co-accused Sudarshan Ghule has retracted from
the so-called confession allegedly made before the police officer,
therefore, the said statement cannot form the sole basis for
sustaining the prosecution against the appellant. In such
circumstances, Shri Gupte prayed for grant of bail.
SUBMISSIONS OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
Shri Girase strongly opposed the instant appeal. He pointed out
that there is ample material available on record against the
appellant, not only in the form of direct evidence, but also in the
form of electronic/ digital evidence. This evidence clearly
*16* 952apeal693o25
discloses that it is only the appellant Walmik Karad and none
other else, who could be said to be the main accused of the
instant crime. Shri Girase narrated complete prosecution story
and highlighted chain of events by filing the affidavit in reply
dated 20.11.2025.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor Shri Girase submitted
that on the basis of the complaints filed by three complainants,
three FIRs came to be registered against the appellant and co-
accused. Shri Girase vehemently submitted that the appellant is
the main accused person, who wanted to extort money from the
company and for achieving this target, he wanted to create terror
in the minds of general public so that nobody should oppose him.
There is direct evidence in the form of statements of
eyewitnesses of the incidents of extortion, threats, unlawful
assembly, criminal conspiracy, rioting, wrongful restraint,
kidnapping, assault and murder. All crimes have been committed
in syndicate manner, therefore, the appellant along with other
accused are the part of the organized syndicate.
12. Shri Girase has taken me through the statement of
Sunil Shinde, who is the office bearer of the company. In his
*17* 952apeal693o25
statement recorded by the police, Sunil Shinde stated that the
appellant called him on mobile on 28.08.2024 in the evening and
he handed over the mobile phone to another office bearer of the
company Shivaji Thopte and the appellant spoke to Shivaji
Thopte and told him to meet at Parali or stop the work of the
company. The police has seized the call data report (CDR) of the
call between the mobile of the appellant and the mobile of Sunil
Shinde dated 28.08.2024.
13. Shri Girase submitted that another incident is of
11.09.2024, wherein, again the appellant called on the mobile of
Sunil Shinde and spoke to Shivaji Thopte directing him to meet
the appellant at Parali along with senior officers of the company.
Since local officers of the company were frightened due to
repeated threats of the appellant, therefore, they intimated this
issue to the higher officers of the company, namely, Altaf
Tamboli. Thereafter, on 08.10.2024, the meeting took place at the
office of the appellant at Parali, which was attended by Shivaji
Thopte and the accused Walmik Karad and Vishnu Chate and in
that meeting, the appellant informed Shivaji Thopte that if they
want to keep the plant functioning, they would have to pay Rs.2
*18* 952apeal693o25
crores to him, otherwise, he would not allow them to have their
plant anywhere in Beed district. CDR dated 08.10.2024 between
mobiles of the appellant and Shivaji Thopte also supports the
said fact. The meeting dated 08.10.2024 is also corroborated by
the statement of the accused Sudarshan Ghule, which is recorded
as per Section 18 of the Act.
14. Shri Girase specifically pointed out the incident
dated 09.10.2024 wherein, Shivaji Thopte received phone call
from Altaf Tamboli and accordingly, he communicated the
message of the appellant as per meeting dated 08.10.2024 to
Altaf Tamboli. Since the appellant had asked the mobile numbers
of higher officers of the company, therefore, Shivaji Thopte had
given mobile numbers of Altaf Tamboli and Jay Shukla to the
appellant. Call details between Altaf Tamboli and Shivaji Thopte
as well as the accused Vishnu Chate with Shivaji Thopte and the
appellant with Shivaji Thopte have been obtained, which support
the allegations of the prosecution. On 09.10.2024, the appellant
had also called Jay Shukla and Altaf Tamboli and their CDR is
also obtained. Both company officers stated that the appellant has
demanded Rs.2 crores towards extortion. It was also discussed
*19* 952apeal693o25
between the company officers whether to lodge the police
complaint against the present appellant. Since the plant
functioning was going on, therefore, they worried about its
working and as such, they did not report the matter to the police.
On 26.11.2024, the accused Sudarshan Ghule had come to the
company and threatened Shivaji Thopte saying that if Rs.2 crores
as demanded by the appellant is not paid, they would not allow to
do their work anywhere in Beed district. The police also obtained
mobile location data of 26.11.2025 showing the location of the
accused Sudarshan Ghule at the company site at village
Massajog, which also supports the prosecution case. Thereafter,
on 29.11.2024, the accused Vishnu Chate called Sunil Shinde and
gave similar threats. The said CDR is also seized. The appellant
has also talked Sunil Shinde, Altaf Tamboli and Shivaji Thopte
and their conversation is seized from the mobile vide the
panchanama and the certificate under Section 64(4)(c) of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 was also obtained. The
forensic report confirming the voice of the appellant is also
procured by the prosecution. In the said conversation, the
appellant had talked to the project officer Sunil Shinde through
the phone of the accused Vishnu Chate and the appellant told to
*20* 952apeal693o25
close down the project immediately.
15. Shri Girase has also pointed out that the CCTV
footage of the meeting held at Hotel Chahapremi Amrut Tulya at
Kaij on 29.11.2024 in which, the appellant was seen along with
other accused Sudarshan @ Dnyaneshwar Ghule, Vishnu Chate,
Pratik Ghule, Krushna Andhale and Sudhir Sangale, is also
seized. The police have also obtained tower location of mobiles
of the accused persons, which also confirms that they were at
Kaij at the relevant time on 29.11.2024 . There is also another
incident of 29.11.2024 wherein, the accused Sudarshan Ghule
goes to the company and talked to Sunil Shinde informing him
that unless and until Rs.2 crores as demanded by the appellant
are paid, they will not allow to do their work. The statement of
the accused Sudarshan Ghule recorded under Section 18 of the
Act supports the prosecution story. CDR, video clips and forensic
reports confirm the prosecution case.
16. Shri Girase submitted that since the demand of the
appellant was not fulfilled by the company officers, therefore, the
accused persons decided to go to the plant site on 06.12.2024 and
hatched a conspiracy to teach them a lesson. When they went to
*21* 952apeal693o25
the company site on 06.12.2024, at that time the guards posted
there, were not allowing them to enter into the company.
However, after threatening and assaulting the said guards, the
accused persons entered into the company site and thereafter, the
accused Sudarshan Ghule called the present appellant. Since
there was tense situation, certain villagers including the Sarpanch
of village Massajog, Santosh Deshmukh (deceased) came at the
spot. The villagers told the accused persons not to close the plant
as they are getting jobs and work. At that time, there was fight
between both sides and the said fact is stated by the accused
Sudarshan Ghule in his statement recorded under Section 18. The
CDR of Sudarshan Ghule with the appellant also supports the
allegations made against the accused persons of the incident of
06.12.2024. Tower location of the mobile of the accused
Sudarshan Ghule at the relevant time, was Massajog. So also
tower locations of the other accused persons and witnesses also
confirm the prosecution case.
17. Shri Girase, therefore, submitted that from this
entire episode, it is clear that the deceased Santosh Deshmukh,
who was the Sarpanch of Massajog, was protecting the interest of
*22* 952apeal693o25
villagers and was also insisting the accused persons not to stop
the project work as the said project is going to generate
employment for youths of village. Since the deceased Santosh
Deshmukh came there along with several villagers, therefore, the
accused Sudarshan Ghule threatened him of committing his
murder. Due to tense situation, the police had come and they had
taken the accused persons with them. CDRs of conversation of
06.12.2024, 07.12.2024 and 08.12.2024 are crucial because it
clearly show that the accused persons were in touch with each
other continuously. The accused Vishnu Chate has also
threatened the deceased Santosh Deshmukh on 07.12.2024 and
CDR to this effect also substantiate the said position.
18. Shri Girase has further drawn attention of this Court
to the incident of 08.12.2024. The statement of one confidential
witness was recorded and he narrated the incident of 08.12.2024.
According to this confidential witness, he saw the accused
Sudarshan Ghule and Vishnu Chate at one hotel and in that
meeting, the accused persons have decided to commit murder of
the deceased Santosh Deshmukh in order to create terror in the
minds of other people. The statement of this confidential witness
*23* 952apeal693o25
is also corroborated by the accused Sudarshan Ghule in his
statement recorded under Section 18. All accused persons in their
statements recorded under Section 18 have stated that the present
appellant was aggrieved due to indulgence at the hands of the
accused Santosh Deshmukh, who was Sarpanch of village
Massajog and because of Santosh Deshmukh, the accused
persons could not close down the project. Therefore, the present
appellant had decided to teach a lesson to the deceased Santosh
Deshmukh. The statement of the brother of the deceased Santosh
Deshmukh, namely, Dhananjay Deshmukh also came to be
recorded, who stated that the deceased Santosh told him on
09.12.2024 that the accused Vishnu Chate, who is very close to
the appellant, is threatening him by saying not to come between
the demand of the present appellant with the company. The
statement of cousin of the deceased Santosh, namely, Shivaraj
Deshmukh also came to be recorded by the police, who stated
that on 09.12.2024 when he wanted to go to Massajog, at that
time, his cousin Santosh Deshmukh had come in his Tata Indigo
Car and asked him to accompany him. Therefore, they proceeded
towards Massajog from Kaij, however, while crossing toll plaza,
one Scorpio car intercepted their vehicle. From the said Scorpio
*24* 952apeal693o25
car, six persons alighted and one person broke the glass of
window by pelting stone and thereafter, the accused persons
forcibly took Santosh Deshmukh in their Scorpio car by
assaulting them with stick. They went towards Kaij. Another
swift car also followed them. Similarly, the statements of other
eyewitnesses, namely, Dadasaheb Khindkar, Amol Bansod,
Balaji Vanjare, Pandurang Tandale and Santoshsingh Badoriya
also came to be recorded by the police and these statements also
supported the aforesaid incident of kidnapping dated 09.12.2024.
Eyewitnesses have also identified some of the accused persons in
the test identification parade.
19. Shri Girase further submitted that after kidnapping,
the accused persons took the deceased Santosh to one abandoned
premises and there, everybody assaulted him with weapons
which they were carrying. The accused persons themselves have
done video recording in their own mobiles of the assaulting.
There are 23 video clips wherein, the accused persons are seen
brutally assaulting the deceased Santosh Deshmukh. The
panchanama of video recording was also done and the forensic
report was also obtained, which clearly identify the injured
*25* 952apeal693o25
person as Santosh and the assailants as Pratik Ghule, Jayram
Chate, Mahesh Kedar, Sudarshan Ghule and Sudhir Sangale.
Admittedly, the present appellant was not present on the spot,
however, it is established by the prosecution that the accused
persons were in constant touch with the appellant at the relevant
time. Thereafter, the accused persons threw the body of the
deceased Santosh Deshmukh after a period of four hours. Video
clips disclose that the accused persons were armed with pipe,
wires, gas pipe, sticks, iron rods, clutch wire and plastic pipe.
When the brother of the deceased, Dhananjay Deshmukh came to
know that the accused persons have abducted Santosh, he called
the accused persons requesting to release Santosh. Call data
record at the relevant time between Dhananjay, the accused
Vishnu Chate and Walmik Karad came to be procured, which
clearly shows that the appellant was not only in constant touch
with other accused persons, but was also virtually monitoring the
incident of abduction and killing.
20. To contradict the submission of the learned Senior
Advocate Shri Gupte that the appellant was not at all present at
the spot on 09.12.2024, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Girase
*26* 952apeal693o25
candidly submitted that admittedly, the present appellant was not
present on the spot of incident, however, abetment in crime as
defined in Section 2(1)(a) of the Act does not require actual
presence of the accused on the spot, but his communication with
other accused persons is sufficient to prove the involvement of
the accused in the crime. Shri Girase, therefore, submitted that
though admittedly the appellant was not present on the spot at the
time of commission of offence of kidnapping and murder of the
deceased Santosh, however, his continuous touch with other
accused persons on mobile, makes him guilty of the instant
crime. The appellant right from inception of the instant crime is
the main leader, who wanted to extort money from the company
and since the deceased Santosh had opposed his men from
closing down the project, therefore, in order to create terror and
also to teach a lesson to the deceased Santosh, the accused
persons committed murder.
21. As regards the submission of Shri Gupte that the
statement of the accused Sudarshan Ghule recorded under
Section 18 cannot be relied upon for the reason that he had
retracted from the said statement while he was produced before
*27* 952apeal693o25
the Magistrate, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Girase
submitted that as per Section 21(2) of the Act, after recording the
statement of the accused, the law prescribes that he is required to
be produced before the Magistrate and as per section 21(6), in
the event of torture, he is required to be referred to the higher
medical officer. Apart from this, no other duty has been cast upon
the learned Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate
proceeded to record his statement as if the statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is
unnecessary. Thus, according to Shri Girase, there was no
requirement for the learned Magistrate to record the statement of
the accused Sudarshan Ghule after confession under Section 18.
22. Shri Girase also submitted that the issue as regards
communicating the grounds of arrest to the accused at the time of
arrest, has been referred to the Larger Bench of this Court in
Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No.24338/2024 (Mumbai)
(Vicky Bharat Kalyani vs. The State of Maharashtra and another)
vide order dated 31.01.2025 and is pending.
23. However, to contradict the submission of the learned
Senior Advocate Shri Gupte on the point of not communicating
*28* 952apeal693o25
the grounds of arrest to the accused and this action being
violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, therefore,
the appellant is illegally detained, Shri Girase submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Kasireddy Upender
Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , Criminal Appeal
No.2808/2025 decided on 23.05.2025, has observed in paragraph
36 that the accused, who is arrested without warrant, must be told
why he has been arrested and if he is arrested for committing an
offence, he must be told that he has committed certain offence
for which he would be placed on trial. Thus, more emphasis has
been given on the words 'must be told' and by observing so, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the said appeal after
reaching to the conclusion that the requirement in terms of
praragraph 21(b) as laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) could be
said to have been fulfilled. Shri Girase further relied on the
recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan, 2025 KHC OnLine 6639, wherein, it
is observed that the mere absence of written grounds does not
ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in
demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.
Shri Girase has strenuously submitted that non supply of grounds
*29* 952apeal693o25
of arrest in writing would not vitiate such arrest on the ground of
non compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The said Section 50 does not provide for a
specific mode or time frame for communication of the grounds
of arrest to the person arrested. In view of several
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the grounds of
arrest can be supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in
any case, two hours prior to the production of the detenue before
the learned Magistrate for remand proceedings. In this regard,
Shri Girase relied on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph Nos.52 to 58 of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra),
which read thus:-
"52. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police
are already in possession of documentary
material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest,
the written grounds of arrest must be furnished
to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in
exceptional circumstances such as offences
against body or property committed in
flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds
of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered
impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police
officer or other person making the arrest to
orally convey the same to the person at the time
of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of
arrest must be supplied to the arrested person
within a reasonable time and in no event later
than two hours prior to production of the
*30* 952apeal693o25
arrestee before the magistrate for remand
proceedings. The remand papers shall contain
the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay
in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for
it be included for the information of the
magistrate.
53. The above indicated lower limit of two hours
minimum interval before the production is
grounded in the functional necessity so that the
right as provided to an arrestee under the
Constitution and the statute is safeguarded
effectively. This period would ensure that the
counsel has adequate time to scrutinize the
basis of arrest and gather relevant material to
defend the arrestee proficiently and capably
while opposing the remand. Any shorter
interval may render such preparation illusory,
thereby resulting in non-compliance of the
constitutional and statutory mandate. The two-
hour threshold before production for remand
thus strikes a judicious balance between
safeguarding the arrestee's constitutional rights
under Article 22(1) and preserving the
operational continuity of criminal
investigations.
54. In view of the above, we hold with regard to
the second issue that non supply of grounds of
arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to or
immediately after arrest would not vitiate such
arrest on the grounds of non-compliance with
the provisions of Section 50 of the CrPC 1973
(now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) provided the
said grounds are supplied in writing within a
reasonable time and in any case two hours prior
to the production of the arrestee before the
magistrate for remand proceedings.
55. It goes without saying that if the abovesaid
schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in
writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be
rendered illegal entitling the release of the
arrestee. On such release, an application for
*31* 952apeal693o25
remand or custody, if required, will be moved
along with the reasons and necessity for the
same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest
in writing setting forth the explanation for non-
supply thereof within the above stipulated
schedule. On receipt of such an application, the
magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously
and preferably within a week of submission
thereof by adhering to the principles of natural
justice.
56. In conclusion, it is held that:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing
the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory
in all offences under all statutes including
offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be
communicated in writing to the arrestee in the
language he/she understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting
officer/person is unable to communicate the
grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after
arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be
communicated in writing within a reasonable
time and in any case at least two hours prior to
production of the arrestee for remand
proceedings before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance of the above,
the arrest and subsequent remand would be
rendered illegal and the person will be at
liberty to be set free.
57. After having come to the above conclusion, it
is pertinent to note that the provision of law
under Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (Section 47 of
BNSS 2023) does not provide for a specific
mode of or time frame for communication of
the grounds of arrest to the person arrested.
This Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), held
that the grounds of arrest be conveyed to the
arrestee in writing in all offences at the earliest,
which means it need not be given at the time of
*32* 952apeal693o25
arrest but within a reasonable time thereafter,
for offences under all the statutes, which period
would be as has been laid down above in this
order.
58. We are cognizant that there existed no
consistent or binding requirement mandating
written communication of the grounds of arrest
for all the offences. Holding as above, in our
view, would ensure implementation of the
constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as
engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution
of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on
obligation would avoid uncertainty in the
administration of criminal justice. The ends of
fairness and legal discipline therefore demand
that this procedure as affirmed above shall
govern arrests henceforth."
24. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mihir Shah (supra), Shri Girase submitted that
there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating
written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the
offences and therefore, the procedure as laid down in Mihir Shah
case (supra), would govern arrests henceforth. Thus, the word
'henceforth' in paragraph No.58 of the said judgment means that
the police authorities shall have to implement the aforesaid
guidelines to the cases prospectively meaning thereby, same
cannot be applied to the earlier cases, which came to be
registered previously. In the judgment delivered in one similar
*33* 952apeal693o25
case by this Court at Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Application
(BA) No.199/2025 (Onkar S/o Mahendra Talmale Vs. State of
Maharashtra), along with other connected matters, this Court
vide order dated 12.12.2025, while taking support from the
Black's Law Dictionary to define the word 'henceforth', refused
to grant relief to the accused.
25. Shri Girase further submitted that as per the
definition of the word 'abet' defined under Section 2(1)(a) of the
Act, the present appellant is squarely covered by the provisions
of Section 3(1) and 3(2). In this regard, Shri Girase has relied
upon paragraph 27 of the judgment delivered by this Court in
Prem vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 5092 :
(2022) 1 AIR Bom R (Cri) 530 . According to him, the Act
specifically defined the term 'abet' and it does not relegate to the
definition of 'abetment' under the Indian Penal Code. As per
Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, the term "abet" inter alia includes
communication or association with any person with the actual
knowledge or having reason to believe that such person is
engaged in assisting in any manner, an organised crime syndicate
or rendering of any assistance, whether financial or otherwise, to
*34* 952apeal693o25
the organised crime syndicate. Shri Girase has referred to
paragraph No.32 of Prem vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and
pointed out the observations made by this Court by referring to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjitsingh
Bramhajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC
294, that in order to invoke the provisions of the Act, even if a
person may or may not have any direct role to play as regards the
commission of an organised crime, if a nexus either with an
accused who is a member of an "organised crime syndicate" or
with the offence in the nature of an "organised crime" is
established that would invoke Section 3(2) of the Act. Even if
one may not have any direct role to play relating to the
commission of an "organised crime", but when the nexus of such
person with an accused who is a member of the "organised crime
syndicate or such nexus is related to the offence in the nature of
"organised crime" is established by showing his involvement
with the accused or the offence in the nature of such "organised
crime", that by itself would attract the provisions of the Act.
26. Shri Girase further pointed out that the contention of
the appellant that the sanction for prosecution under the Act is
*35* 952apeal693o25
not properly accorded, is totally baseless. According to Shri
Girase, the question of validity of approval or sanction cannot be
decided unless the prosecution is afforded an opportunity to lead
evidence in that regard. The accused may raise an objection
regarding the defects in such approval or sanction, however, for
conclusive decision on the said point, the accused has to wait till
the trial is completed and on that ground he cannot insist for
discharge or for grant of bail. On this point, the law is well
settled that the prosecution, in a case where sanction or the
approval order does not ex-facie show consideration of all the
materials and/or application of mind, is entitled to establish the
same by leading necessary evidence. Shri Girase, therefore,
submitted that the question of granting bail to the accused merely
on the basis of such objection being raised, cannot arise. The
decision on the point of defect, if any, in the order of approval or
sanction will have to be at the conclusion of the trial. In support
of this submission, Shri Girase has relied upon paragraph 11 of
the judgment of this Court in Sagar Balasaheb Gaikwad vs. State
of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online Bombay 447 : (2021) 4 Bom
CR (Cri) 356.
*36* 952apeal693o25
27. Shri Girase further submitted that in the instant case,
the specific role of the appellant is ascertained and during the
investigation, the evidence is collected to the effect that on the
basis of communications and instructions of the appellant to
other co-accused persons, he has not only actively participated in
commission of crime, but he is the main accused asking other
accused persons to actually act on the field. Shri Girase,
therefore, submitted that in order to prove that the present
appellant has hatched conspiracy to commit the instant crime in
collusion with other accused, it is necessary to examine the role
of the present appellant. Shri Girase has referred to the judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nazir Khan and
others vs. State of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 461 wherein, the aspect
of criminal conspiracy has been elaborately discussed. By relying
on this authority, Shri Girase submitted that in the case of
conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients
of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons
who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for
doing an illegal act or for doing illegal means an act which itself
may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy
is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be
*37* 952apeal693o25
proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or
by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct
evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the
circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence
have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the
accused. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of
combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or
implied, or in part express and in part implied. It is not, however,
necessary that each conspirator should have been in
communication with each other.
28. Shri Girase further relied upon paragraph Nos.19
and 20 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Desh
Deepak Kumar Vihangam vs. State of Bihar, (2022) 7 SCC 721,
to submit that the essence of criminal conspiracy is the unlawful
combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the
combination is framed. The circumstances when taken together
on their face value, should indicate the meeting of the minds
between the conspirator for the intended object of committing an
illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means.
29. As regards filing of the consolidated charge-sheet,
*38* 952apeal693o25
Shri Girase submitted that there is no statutory bar to file
common charge-sheet. A single charge-sheet is permissible in
respect of different crimes. In support of this submission, he
relied upon the judgment of this Court in the State of
Maharashtra vs. Anjanabai Mohan Dahale and others, 1997 SCC
Online Bom 78 : 1997 Bom CR (Cri) 775 wherein, there were
total 09 crimes committed at different places and the prosecution
had filed the single charge-sheet and this Court observed that
submission of single charge-sheet in respect of several crimes is
permissible in law.
30. Finally, Shri Girase submitted that in view evidence
on record in the form of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence,
eyewitnesses, medical evidence, electronic evidence and forensic
evidence and the said evidence being corroborated with each
other, the present appellant is not at all entitled for bail.
Therefore, this appeal be rejected.
SUBMISSIONS OF INTERVENORS/ INFORMANTS
31. Shri Gaware, the learned advocate appearing for one
of the informant, adopted the submissions of the learned Public
Prosecutor. However, in addition, Shri Gaware submitted that in
*39* 952apeal693o25
order to grant bail, this Court is required to consider the
provisions of Section 21(4) of the Act. According to him, there is
specific bar as regards releasing the accused persons on bail
unless two conditions are satisfied. In this case, the appellant/
accused in his appeal has not submitted anything as regards the
twin test. One test, according to Shri Gaware, is that this Court
has to give finding that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of such offences under the
Act and second is that, the accused is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. On these aspects, the appeal preferred by
the appellant is totally silent. Therefore, the conditions of this
twin test are not satisfied. Shri Gaware further submitted that on
the basis of material collected by the prosecution, there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the present appellant is not
only guilty, but is also the mastermind of the entire crime. Series
of offences committed by the appellant previously itself go to
show that he is having no regard for law and order of the society
and it cannot be held that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.
32. Shri Gaware has referred to the list of previous
*40* 952apeal693o25
crimes committed by the present appellant along with other
accused. Though in some of the crimes, the appellant may have
been acquitted, but the fact remains that in last 10 years, there are
11 serious offences registered against the appellant and his gang,
out of which, in 8 offences, cognizance has been taken. These
offences include murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping,
extortion, theft and assault. In support of the above submission,
Shri Gaware has relied upon paragraphs 28 and 29 of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra
vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561 and
submitted that while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA,
having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of
Section 21 of the Act, the Court may have to probe into the
matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the
material collected against the accused during the investigation
may not justify the judgment of conviction. So also, the Court is
required to record the finding as to the possibility of his
committing a crime after grant of bail. The Court is also required
to see the culpability of the accused and his involvement in the
commission of an organized crime either directly or indirectly.
Shri Gaware has pointed out the observations in Vishwanath
*41* 952apeal693o25
Shetty (supra) as under:-
"29. .... In view of the above, we also
reiterate that when a prosecution is for
offence(s) under a special statute and that
statute contains specific provisions for dealing
with matters arising there under, these
provisions cannot be ignored while dealing
with such an application. Since the respondent
has been charged with offence under MCOCA,
while dealing with his application for grant of
bail, in addition to the broad principles to be
applied in prosecution for the offences under
the IPC, the relevant provision in the said
statute, namely, sub-section (4) of Section 21
has to be kept in mind. It is also further made
clear that a bare reading of the non obstante
clause in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of
MCOCA that the power to grant bail to a
person accused of having committed offence
under the said Act is not only subject to the
limitations imposed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but also
subject to the restrictions placed by clauses (a)
and (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 21. Apart
from giving an opportunity to the prosecutor to
oppose the application for such release, the
other twin conditions, viz., (i) the satisfaction
of the Court that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail, have to be
satisfied. The satisfaction contemplated in
clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4) of Section
21 regarding the accused being not guilty, has
to be based on "reasonable grounds". Though
the expression "reasonable grounds" has not
been defined in the Act, it is presumed that it is
something more than prima facie grounds. We
reiterate that recording of satisfaction on both
*42* 952apeal693o25
the aspects mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of
sub- section (4) of Section 21 is sine qua non
for granting bail under MCOCA."
33. In support of the above submission, Shri Gaware
also relied upon another recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jayshree Kanabar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 2
SCC 797.
34. Shri Gaware then emphasized antecedents of the
appellant/ accused and invited the attention of this Court to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 14 SCC 422. While relying on this
authority, Shri Gaware submitted that while granting bail, the
Court has to keep in mind some important aspects such as (a) not
only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature
of evidence in support of the accusations; (b) reasonable
apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the
apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant; (c)
there ought to be prima facie satisfaction of the court in support
of the charge; (d) nature and gravity of the accusation; (e) danger
*43* 952apeal693o25
of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (f)
character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused; (g) likelihood of the offence being repeated; and (h)
danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
35. On the aspect of grounds of arrest communicated to
the appellant, Shri Gaware submitted that it is not the
prosecution, which has arrested the appellant/ accused, but on the
contrary, the appellant himself along with hundreds of people has
surrendered before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pune
and it is only after his surrender, he came to be arrested.
Therefore, no question arose for communicating the grounds of
arrest. However, the grounds of arrest were also communicated
to the appellant. Even if those were not communicated, that
cannot be a ground for releasing the appellant on bail especially
in the serious offences under the MCOC Act. Shri Gaware
submitted that in fact the appellant was absconding for
considerable period and it is only because of the media pressure,
he has surrendered before the police. One of the associate of the
appellant is still absconding. Shri Gaware, therefore, submitted
that there is no illegality in communicating the grounds of arrest,
*44* 952apeal693o25
in consolidation of FIRs and filing single charge and also as
regards sanction/ approval under the Act. It is, therefore, prayed
that the appeal be dismissed.
36. The learned advocate Shri Ashutosh Mishra
appearing for one of the complainant, has adopted the
submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Gaware
and submitted that the appeal be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS
37. In this case, the offences alleged pertain to the
special statute enacted for the special purpose of prevention and
control of criminal activities by organized gangs so as to tackle
the black money generated from contract killings, extortion, drug
trafficking, and kidnapping. Therefore, parameters for grant of
bail in such offences are different. As such, the parties are
extensively heard even at the stage of grant of bail pending trial.
38. Twin Test:- Section 21(4) of the Act reads thus:-
"21(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code, no person accused of an offence
*45* 952apeal693o25
punishable under this Act shall, if in custody,
be released on bail or on his own bond, unless
--
(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application of such
release; and
(b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the Court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail."
39. In view of clause (b) of Section 21(4), it is for this
Court to get satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that
he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. In this
respect, as per the prosecution case as pointed out by the learned
Public Prosecutor, there is ample material to show that the
appellant has issued instructions to co-accused Sudarshan Ghule
and Vishnu Chate to give threats to the officers of the Avaada
Company asking them to pay ransom of Rs.2 crores in order to
run their project. Call data report and the locations of the accused
persons collected by the prosecution confirms that it was the
appellant himself, who had issued such instructions to co-
accused and at whose behest, the co-accused were threatening
the employees and officers of Avaada Company. There are
*46* 952apeal693o25
consecutive incidents wherein the accused persons met the
employees or officers of the company. Even higher officers of the
company were contacted by the appellant on their mobile
phones. In view of continuous threats at the behest of the
appellant, the officers of the company also met the appellant
Walmik and there is evidence collected by the prosecution to this
effect which indicates that during such meeting also, there is
demand made by the appellant and the said officers were
threatened of dire consequences if the amount is not paid. Since
the amount was not paid, the appellant again gave instructions to
co-accused and based on such instructions, the co-accused
committed criminal trespass in the company office at Massajog
and during that time, the said accused persons assaulted the
company's watchmen and threatened office bearers by putting
them in fear in order to extort money as demanded by the
appellant. During the investigation, it is found that there is chain
of continuous talk between the accused persons and the appellant
at the time of criminal trespass in the company. The deceased
Santosh Deshmukh had intervened on 06.12.2024, however, the
police restrained the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused
persons started giving continuous threats to the deceased Santosh
*47* 952apeal693o25
Deshmukh since he had intervened during the incident of
extortion. Co-accused Vishnu Chate called the deceased Santosh
Deshmukh on 08.12.2024 and threatened him by saying that the
present appellant would not spare him and would commit his
murder. The investigation report also suggests that on
08.12.2024, one confidential witness attended the dinner with
accused Sudarshan Ghule and Vishnu Chate and during the said
meeting, the accused Vishnu Chate communicated the message
of the present appellant for teaching lesson to Santosh Deshmukh
and further instructed that Santosh should be killed. The message
given by the present appellant was clearly to indicate that
everyone in Beed district should be warned and anyone who
interferes with the gang members of the appellant, would face
serious consequences.
40. The material collected by the prosecution during
investigation also reveals that on 09.12.2024, the incident of
abduction and killing of the deceased Santosh took place. The
accused persons, who had abducted and killed the deceased,
themselves had recorded the videos of incident. These videos
were sent to the forensic laboratory and their genuineness is not
*48* 952apeal693o25
doubted. The prosecution has placed on record video clips whose
authenticity is supported by forensic reports. These videos
indicate brutality of assault. There are more than 23 video clips
which are seized by the prosecution. The investigation also
shows that immediately after kidnapping of the deceased
Santosh, his brother Dhananjay made two phone calls to the
appellant requesting to release his brother. However, the
appellant has not given any response.
41. Evidence on record collected during the
investigation prima facie indicates that the appellant is the
mastermind of the entire incident and he remained in continuous
contact with other accused persons. All evidence which has come
on record, which is not only in the form of direct evidence, but
also in the form of electronic evidence, forensic evidence,
eyewitnesses, CDR evidence, etc. connects the present appellant
with the crime. Therefore, the prosecution on the basis of
material collected so far during investigation, submitted the
charge-sheet and such material clearly goes to suggest that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is guilty
of the alleged offences. Therefore, the first twin test whether,
*49* 952apeal693o25
there are reasonable grounds for holding that the appellant is
guilty, is satisfied.
42. As regards another condition of twin test whether,
the appellant is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, the
prosecution has supplied the list of serious criminal cases
pending against the appellant and registration of such serious
criminal cases against the appellant is sufficient to arrive at
conclusion that the appellant does not have regard for law and
order of the society. Considering the nature of the instant offence
coupled with the conduct of the appellant, it is not difficult to
predict that the appellant may commit offence if released on bail.
Therefore, possibility of committing other crime after release on
bail, cannot be ruled out.
43. Grounds of Arrest:- Insofar as the submission of the
learned Senior Advocate Shri Gupte as regards communicating
the written grounds of arrest is concerned, the learned Public
Prosecutor Shri Girase and the learned advocate Shri Gaware
have rightly relied upon the judgment of Mihir Shah (supra)
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect of
*50* 952apeal693o25
issuing such written grounds of arrest to the accused in the
offences, which would be registered 'henceforth'. The date of
this judgment is 06.11.2025 and the FIRs are in the present case
are registered on 06.12.2024, 09.12.2024 and 11.12.2024. The
judgment of Mihir Shah (supra) reiterates the principles laid
down in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra)
while expressing the term 'henceforth' thereby, making the
procedural requirement prospective. In case of Navneen Siyaram
Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online Bom 4532,
and also recent judgment of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Onkar
Mahendra Talmale vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal
Application (BA) No.199/2025 decided on 12.12.2025, the
principle of applying the term 'henceforth' prospectively is
reiterated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanishk Sinha vs.
State of West Bengal, 2025 Live Law (SC) 259, has
authoritatively reiterated the settled principle that judicial
pronouncements are ordinarily prospective in operation, unless
the judgment itself expressly states that it will apply
retrospectively. Similarly, in the judgment delivered by this Court
at Goa Bench in Siddiqui @ Suleman Khan vs. The Investigating
Officer, Criminal Writ Petition No.683/2025 (F), the relief was
*51* 952apeal693o25
not granted to the accused therein holding that the judgment in
Mihir Shah (supra) was delivered on 06.11.2025 and the accused
therein was arrested on 12.11.2025. In this view of the matter,
mandatory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest to
the accused would be applicable from the date of judgment
pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Shah
(supra). However, in the case of the appellant, he himself
surrendered before the Police Authorities at Pune and the
documents brought on record would reveal that the appellant was
served with the grounds of arrest vide communications dated
31.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. The prosecution also pointed out the
signature of the appellant on the said written communications.
Not only this, but the prosecution also served these grounds of
arrest to the close associate of the appellant, namely, Rohit
Kamble and his signature is also appearing on the said
communications. However, the learned Senior Advocate Shri
Gupte submitted that the signature appearing on the said
communications are forged and, therefore, same cannot be relied
upon. However, the question of whether, the appellant has signed
those documents or not, cannot be considered at this stage.
Suffice it to say that the prosecution has sufficiently pointed out
*52* 952apeal693o25
to this Court that the grounds of arrest were not only duly
communicated to the appellant, but also his close associate Rohit
Kamble. The prosecution has also relied on the application
submitted by the present appellant before the Trial Court for
granting permission to Rohit Kamble to accompany the appellant
as he is suffering from serious ailment. The said application itself
discloses that Rohit Kamble is close associate of the appellant.
Considering the aforesaid aspects, it can be safely said that the
grounds of arrest have been duly communicated to the appellant.
44. Consolidated charge-sheet:- Insofar as filing of the
consolidated charge-sheet is concerned, the learned Senior
Advocate has failed to point out any specific provision in the Act
or the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing the consolidated
charge-sheet and/or obtaining permission from the Trial Court for
filing the same. In absence of such provision, it is not appropriate
for the appellant to raise such ground. On the contrary, the
learned advocate Shri Gaware relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Muniappan and others vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 to point out that clubbing of
offences is held to be valid. Shri Girase has also invited attention
*53* 952apeal693o25
of this Court to the judgment of Anjanabai (supra) to submit that
single charge-sheet in respect of different crimes is permissible in
law. In such circumstances, the filing of a consolidated charge-
sheet in respect of inter-connected crimes forming part of a
single transaction of organised crime cannot be faulted at the bail
stage. The legality or otherwise of such consolidation is a matter
for trial and does not dilute the prima facie material against the
appellant.
45. Sanction/ Approval:- Another ground which is raised by
the appellant is that there is no sanction for invoking the
provisions of the Act. It is vehemently argued by the appellant
that prior approval as well well as sanction are not in accordance
with established procedure of law. In this regard, it has come on
record that the CID, Pune submitted the proposal No.41/2025 for
sanction to prosecute the accused in Crime No.637/2024. On
10.01.2025, prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act was
also granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police
(Administration). Thereafter, on 21.02.2025, the Additional
Director General of Police granted sanction to prosecute the
accused under Section 23(2) of the Act. The record reveals that
*54* 952apeal693o25
on the basis of material produced before the said authorities, they
have accorded sanction as per the provisions of the Act and
considering the nature of crimes, the sanction was granted. On
being asked whether, the appellant has challenged the sanction or
approval order before any Court, it is submitted that he has filed
the discharge application before the Trial Court, however, since
the same was rejected, the appellant has challenged the said order
of the Trial Court before the Division Bench of this Court. Since
the issue as regards sanction would be considered by the
appropriate Court, therefore, at the time of deciding the bail
application, same is not required to be gone into in this appeal.
Therefore, at this stage, the sanction cannot be held to be ex facie
invalid so as to warrant grant of bail. Such objections are
required to be adjudicated during trial after evidence is led.
46. Medical Evidence:- The postmortem report of the
deceased Santosh Deshmukh reveals multiple external and
internal injuries caused by hard and blunt objects. The nature,
number and distribution of injuries indicate a brutal and
sustained assault. The medical opinion corroborates the
prosecution case of homicidal death caused by collective
*55* 952apeal693o25
violence and rules out any accidental or self-inflicted cause.
47. Electronic Evidence:- The prosecution has relied upon call
data records, tower location details and mobile conversations to
establish continuous communication between the appellant and
the co-accused before, during and after the commission of
offences. At this stage, such electronic evidence prima facie
demonstrates that the appellant remained in constant touch with
the co-accused and exercised control over the syndicate, thereby
satisfying the ingredient of abetment under Section 2(1)(a) of the
Act.
48. Forensic Evidence:- The forensic laboratory reports
confirm the authenticity of seized video clips and identify the
deceased and the accused. Voice sample analysis further
corroborates the prosecution case regarding telephonic threats
and instructions. At this stage, the forensic evidence lends strong
corroboration to the electronic and ocular material collected
during investigation.
49. Circumstantial Evidence:- The circumstances established
on record, namely prior extortion demands, threats to company
*56* 952apeal693o25
officials, intervention by the deceased, subsequent intimidation,
conspiracy meetings and the eventual abduction and murder,
prima facie establishes a complete chain pointing towards the
involvement of the appellant.
50. Eyewitnesses:- The statements of eyewitnesses to the
incident of abduction at the toll plaza, supported by test
identification parade, prima facie establish the participation of
co-accused acting as members of an organised crime syndicate at
the best of the appellant.
51. Chain of Events:- The prosecution has successfully
demonstrated an unbroken chain of events beginning from
extortion demands, escalation of threats, conspiracy meetings,
criminal trespass, intimidation of the deceased, and culminating
in his abduction and murder. At this stage, the continuity of
events clearly reflects organised criminal activity planned by the
appellant.
52. Corroboration of Evidence:- The prosecution case does not
rest on a solitary piece of evidence. The ocular, electronic,
forensic and medical evidence corroborate each other and
*57* 952apeal693o25
collectively indicate the involvement of the appellant as the
mastermind of the organised crime syndicate.
53. Social Impact:- The offence is not an isolated act but
reflects organised criminal activity aimed at creating terror in
society and obstructing lawful commercial activity. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,
(2004) 7 SCC 528, has held that while considering bail, the Court
must keep in view the impact of the crime on society at large.
Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub , (1980) 3 SCC
57, it is observed that offences which have the effect of spreading
terror and disturbing public order require a different approach.
More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor
Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, reiterated that in cases
involving organised crime and national or societal security, the
interest of the community outweighs individual liberty at the
stage of bail. In the case in hand, the brutal abduction and murder
of an elected Sarpanch for opposing extortion demands has
shaken public confidence and has far-reaching societal
repercussions. Such crimes goes to the root of rule of law and
public order.
*58* 952apeal693o25
54. Offences under special statute:- The Maharashtra Control
of Organised Crime Act, 1999 is a special statute enacted to
combat organised crime, which by its very nature poses a grave
threat to public order and the administration of justice. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v.
State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, and State of
Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561,
has categorically held that the restrictions imposed under Section
21(4) of the Act are in addition to the limitations under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The satisfaction
contemplated under Section 21(4) is something more than a
prima facie view and requires the Court to record a finding based
on reasonable grounds. Recently, in Jayshree Kanabar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2025) 2 SCC 797, the Supreme Court reiterated
that liberal considerations applicable in ordinary criminal cases
cannot be extended to prosecutions under MCOCA. Therefore,
while dealing with bail under the Act, the Court is statutorily
bound to apply a stricter and cautious approach, keeping in view
the object of the legislation and the societal interest involved.
*59* 952apeal693o25
ORDER
55. In view of the above discussion, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail. The Criminal Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) (Kalyan P. Sangvikar, PS)