Bombay High Court
Viraj Ganesh Karande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 September, 2021
Author: M.S. Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik
11.ba.236-20.doc
PMB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.236 OF 2020
Viraj Ganesh Karande .. Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
---------------------
Mr. Zaigam Rizvi for the Applicant.
Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State.
---------------------
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
P.C.:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an Application for bail in respect of C.R. No.33 of 2018 under Sections 395, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ('the MCOC Act' for short) registered at Kodoli Police Station, district Kolhapur.
3. The date of the FIR is 03.03.2018. The Applicant who is the original accused No.4 was arrested on 12.03.2018. 1/4
11.ba.236-20.doc
4. The complainant alleged that on 02.03.2018 6 persons riding on 3 motorcycles accosted him. It is alleged that one of the accused brandished a sword. The accused left the spot after committing dacoity. The accused took away Rs.20,000/- in cash from the complainant. They also took away the wallet and his mobile phone.
5. The Applicant was arrested on 12.03.2018. The amount of Rs.20,000/-, the mobile phone and wallet was recovered from the Applicant. The Applicant was identifed by the complainant in the identifcation parade that was carried out. The sanction under the MCOC Act was granted on 06.09.2018. The confession statements of the co-accused under Section 18 of the MCOC Act have named the Applicant and also specifed the role of the Applicant in the crime.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is a young boy of 19 years of age and he has been falsely implicated in the said case. According to him, even the other cases are falsely registered against the Applicant. He submits that the custody of the Applicant is not required as the stolen property has already been recovered and the aspect that the Applicant is in custody for more than 3 ½ years is required to 2/4
11.ba.236-20.doc be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that considering the tender age of the Applicant, this is a ft case for grant of bail.
7. Heard. Pursuant to the arrest of the Applicant on 12.03.2018 there is a recovery at his instance. Rs.20,000/- in cash, mobile phone and wallet is recovered at his instance. Moreover, the Applicant has been identifed by the complainant in the identifcation parade. After the MCOC Act was applied, even the statements of the co-accused under Section 18 have named the Applicant and specifc role in respect of the ofence is attributed to him. An afdavit has been fled on behalf of the State by Shri Rajaram Ramrao Patil, DY.S.P. Karveer Sub Division, Kolhapur, District Kolhapur. The details of 18 ofences committed by the Applicant are mentioned. The Applicant is described as a member of the gang. There are as many as three ofences registered against him under Section 392 of IPC. Apart from this, there are several ofences of committing theft registered. The chargesheets are been fled in respect of these ofences. All these ofences are of the year 2018.
8. It is also material to refer to para 12 of the afdavit which reads as under :-
3/4
11.ba.236-20.doc "12. I say that, present applicant when arrested with other co-
accused Suraj Dabade, Omkar Suryavanshi and Govind Mali by Cr. no.3/2018 u/s 454, 457, 380 by Shahuwadi Police Station and kept them in police custody remand on 20/5/2018 By JMFC Panhala dist-Kolhapur. All these accused person kept in Shahuwadi police station lockup they broke iron door of lockup and abscond from police custody. Complainant against all those accused has been registered ASI V.B. Shedage posted at Shahuwadi Police Station and it is pending before the court. The act of accused shows that if he will be release on bail there more chance he can be absconded."
9. Considering the antecedents and the nature of the present ofence, this is not a ft case to grant bail to the Applicant.
10. The Bail Application is rejected.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date:
2021.09.30 17:10:35 +0530 4/4